[FoRK] technology as a life form

Gregory Alan Bolcer greg at bolcer.org
Mon Nov 2 10:41:50 PST 2015


Or gawd forbid--the patent examiner doesn't get it.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:39 AM, J. Andrew Rogers <andrew at jarbox.org> wrote:

>
> This is characteristic of many patents that are legitimately non-obvious.
> A description of an implementation understandable by a person of ordinary
> skill does not imply that the *why* of an implementation is obvious to a
> person of ordinary or even extraordinary skill. You definitely see this
> with some algorithm patents.
>
> The advantage this gives companies is that you can arbitrage the
> difference between “why” and “how”, which is valuable due to the limited
> enforceability of many patents in practice. There are interesting cases
> where a patent describes a process that is substantially superior to any
> existing art, encouraging people to adopt it, but reductions to practice by
> someone that knows “why” are qualitatively superior to someone that only
> knows “how”. The ability to construct a patent this way is actually
> reflects the quality of the invention.
>
> In effect, it gives you a patent and a trade secret for the same invention.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>



-- 
greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476


More information about the FoRK mailing list