|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|