Comment by nroach | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nroach | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Ideas kept under lock and key are much less useful than those that are freely available."

That's precisely the point of the patent system. It is supposed to encourage disclosure so that after the protected period the knowledge is made fully available to society.

The alternative is trade secret protection whereby inventors remain secretive about their work product, never disclosing to the public at large how the device works and not allowing follow-ons to build upon their knowledge.

The two problems with the current system are 1) protection terms are too long and 2) the enablement requirements aren't enforced well enough.

Let's say that the protection term is reduced to one year. And assume that the USPTO requires patents with sufficient detail to fully enable readers to replicate and practice the invention.

Under that scenario, I think that the patent system would be seen as an asset to society. In exchange for a year's worth of protection the inventor has to tell society explicitly how to do exactly what he or she is doing. I don't think most people would have a problem with that system.

If you go back to the Constitutional basis for the patent system, it was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

As long as "limited time" is a reasonable period, I don't know that abolition is required.

I'd add two more problems:

3) Too expensive. 4) Takes too long.

Getting a patent attorney to prepare and file a patent is very expensive. It takes $10k just to get started. The patent system is so byzantine that you can't reasonably expect to do it yourself and be successful. The cost is a drop in the bucket to a large corporation, but it's a major barrier for individual inventors.

Not only that, but it takes way, way to long to actually receive a patent. I applied for a patent about two and a half years ago, and I'm still waiting.

As an individual without infinite resources, I'm hesitant to built a business around my concept unless I can be confident that it'll be protected. If I'm not granted the patent, then it would be trivial for an organization with deeper pockets replicate what I would have created.

I know that patents typically don't make a business defensible, but in my case I decided to pursue a different business opportunity. If I'm granted my patent, then I suppose I'll figure it what to do with it then. On the other hand, what good is a patent on a technology conceived three years ago, except to make life difficult for others?

I read today a factoid that said innovation was down because patents were being filed less (2 percent iirc).

Interesting that someone would think that the number of patents was a direct way one could measure innovation. My interpretation was that possibly less irresponsible patent grabbing was taking place because due to the recession there was less incentive to spend money patenting, and more incentive to keep businesses alive through real innovation.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Determining whether something is patentable or not is currently a process that quite often takes well more than a year. I think shorter terms are the way to go, but they need to be fairly long to justify the cost and hassle of acquiring them. Something in the 5-10 year range is more plausible.

Also, for an article presumably about patents, the author casually conflates copyright a bit too much for my tastes - which is a beast unto itself.

Copyright's primary problems are: insufficiently protected fair use rights, abuse of 'works for hire' and obscene term lengths. But the citizen-facing problems outlined in the article are the result of monopolies that weren't government-granted (MPAA/RIAA) and the DMCA. (Specifically: causing the loss of fair use to make personal copies and publish for non-commercial educational purposes)

The authors behind the article wrote a book Against Intellectual Monopoly that argues for the abolishment of copyright and patents.

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...

Heck, they already found evidence that patent systems did not really disclose secrets and actually distort innovation toward inventions whom secrets wouldn't be secret for long.

However, don't take my memory-say and read the book yourself.

The problem is that despite the patent system, "trade secrets" remain and increasingly so in SaaS. Patents are mainly used as a weapon to impede the progress of competitors.

Abolish software patents, now!

What is wrong with trade secrets anyway? It's not like someone who discovered something is obligated to reveal it to the world. If he chooses to do so out of his good will, fine. But if trade secrets remain despite patent system, that can only mean patent system is not fully enforceable yet.

That's what your parent post is saying. Trade secrets are still prevalent, more successful, and cheaper.

Trade secrets remain today, mostly over the things that aren't (or aren't likely) patentable. So even perfectly enforceable patents would make trade secrets go away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com