Hacker News Reader

Comment by cptskippy | Hacker News Reader

> We grant these companies patents so they can be open about their tech.

No. Hard no.

A patent is used to grant some exclusivity to the patent holder because it assumes the patented thing can be readily duplicated.

The idea is that they want the patent holder to have time to profit from their idea before it can be copied and undercut.

It has nothing to do with being open or sharing.

If a patent is for a tool, there is no requirement that the patent cover things like how to manufacture said tool. If the patent is for a process, there's no obligation that you provided details on the exact application of the process and it's intended purpose.

View on HN

That is absolutely wrong. See European Patent Office - key consideration is that a patent shall enable the invention to be reproduced by a competent proffeshional. If that is not the case, you can strike down the patent in court. That is the whole point of patents.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/20...

It doesn't however require you to disclose exactly how to reproduce it or how to do it cheaply or affordably. That information can be kept as a trade secret.

Part of the reason for patents is that someone else could devise a method of reproducing your patent cheaper or more affordably and undercut you.

In particular the tools to make the things are separately patentable. It is common to make something useful in the lab, and then a few years latter patent manufacturing tools that enable you to make it. It isn't unheard of for a competitor to find a better way to produce something than you and then you cross license each others patents so both of you can produce the thing but nobody else. (before attempting this consult a lawyer - the rules of when you can make something patented are complex)

From Wikipedia:

A patent is a form of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of years in exchange for publishing an enabling public disclosure of the invention.

So, yes, an _enabling_ public disclosure is exactly the purpose of a patent.

Public disclosure of the thing being patented, not all aspects of how you plan to produce and distribute it. In fact, those details are open for additional patents.

> It has nothing to do with being open or sharing.

Wrong. In exchange for being granted a patent, the "invention" needs to be described in great detail, with all the necessary information, so that others can replicate it (once the patent protection expires).

At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

> with all the necessary information, so that others can replicate it

There's no requirement that the information in the patent be via beyond replicating the patent.

If the patent can be reproduced via alternate means that are cheaper or faster, those need not be disclosed. In fact the point of a patent is to protect the patent holder from someone finding a cheaper or faster means of reproducing it.

The invention is just the claims of a particular patent.

The patent description must include enough information so the invention as recited in the claims could be replicated. Patent descriptions do not have to disclose details about the supporting/surrounding components of the whole system or platform.

E.g., a patent claiming a method for selecting 5G channels does not need to describe how to build out a 5G network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com