4 ms·

Imagine someone invented a pill to cure cancer, but kept the details secret and then died; we would lose his invention (a silly example, but it illustrates the

Imagine someone invented a pill to cure cancer, but kept the details secret and then died; we would lose his invention (a silly example, but it illustrates the point). This is not only a silly example, but a bad one. If society never learns that it existed before it was lost, society didn't lose anything because it never had it to begin with. If you can't remember the dream you don't know you had, did you actually forget it?

Buttons840 13y ago
I meant the person released to pill to the public, but never revealed the "secret formulate". Though, I never actually said that. Again, silly example. Said another way, I believe the purpose of patents is to get innovations documented rather than kept secret.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  That is the quid pro quo of patents - early and full disclosure of the invention sufficient to reproduce it [for a practitioner of the relevant art] in exchange for a "limited" monopoly.
  - thwarted 13y ago
    This line of thought made me think of utility of the monopoly on the ownership of the patent vs the utility of the monopoly on the exploitation of the patent. This is a distinction that I don't think is often considered, perhaps because "ownership" of something, at least in the US, has do-whatever-it-is-that-I-want-with-it, including the option of not doing anything, cultural aspect. That is, should the quid pro quo of being granted the limited monopoly require the grantee to still provide for the public good by actually doing something with it, rather than just sitting on it or attempting to exploit those who are doing something with it? So, the public grants you a monopoly on the exploitation of the invention for a limited time in exchange for making the invention public. But purely attacking the public, using the patent as a bat to beat others with, is not part of this exchange because the patent itself is not the invention. Really, shit-or-get-off-the-pot of patent granting. In exchange for publicizing the invention, you get a limited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention, not on the exploitation of the patent.

Buttons840 13y ago

I meant the person released to pill to the public, but never revealed the "secret formulate". Though, I never actually said that. Again, silly example. Said another way, I believe the purpose of patents is to get innovations documented rather than kept secret.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
That is the quid pro quo of patents - early and full disclosure of the invention sufficient to reproduce it [for a practitioner of the relevant art] in exchange for a "limited" monopoly.
- thwarted 13y ago
  This line of thought made me think of utility of the monopoly on the ownership of the patent vs the utility of the monopoly on the exploitation of the patent. This is a distinction that I don't think is often considered, perhaps because "ownership" of something, at least in the US, has do-whatever-it-is-that-I-want-with-it, including the option of not doing anything, cultural aspect. That is, should the quid pro quo of being granted the limited monopoly require the grantee to still provide for the public good by actually doing something with it, rather than just sitting on it or attempting to exploit those who are doing something with it? So, the public grants you a monopoly on the exploitation of the invention for a limited time in exchange for making the invention public. But purely attacking the public, using the patent as a bat to beat others with, is not part of this exchange because the patent itself is not the invention. Really, shit-or-get-off-the-pot of patent granting. In exchange for publicizing the invention, you get a limited monopoly on the exploitation of the invention, not on the exploitation of the patent.