decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
How much is that trade secret worth? | 265 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How much is that trade secret worth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 05:34 PM EDT
If justification for patents are disclosure of trade secrets
then it does not work very well. Quite the opposite, in
fact: patents which are upheld are usually for simple, easy
to understand and reproduce things (bounce-back patent,
rounded corners and other such nonsense) with ZERO trade
secret exposure value (the mere fact that someone was able
to independently reproduce them spokes volumes, isn't it?).

Patents which explain complex and hard-to-discover things
rarely get the same hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars rewards.
This is easy to understand (it's easy for judges and jury to
understand how "history list" works and why it may be
desirable but when patent talks about deeply technical
things they often have no clue what problem patent solves
and why this problem even related to mobile phone, car, or
plane), but it means that system is now doing the opposite
of what it was supposed to do: people who patent obvious and
simple thing get all the rewards while people who actually
disclose something worthwhile in their patents are usually
ignored.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )