Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shrewduser 2768 days ago
By that logic why have IP at all why bother protecting investments in new technology and inventions. the system isn't perfect but you're saying that there's no merit in it whatsoever.
2 comments

This distinctly isn't IP in any real way - it's not trademarkable or patentable.
There's more to IP than trademarks and patents. You skipped over trade secrets.
So, the purpose of granting patents is that companies will take the temporary protection and put their techniques into the public record, preventing the technological loss that occurs when the only people who know a secret accidentally die.

What's the idea behind legal protection for trade secrets?

Legal protection of trade secrets gives the trade secret owner the right to sue if someone steals the secret.

So if employees of Coca-Cola conspire to steal the (trade) secret formulation for Coke, the company can sue them for damages. There can be criminal offenses as well.

Trade secrets are used in situations where there's a secret (like some manufacturing process) that can't easily be reverse-engineered from the product. In that case, the owner can keep the secret as long as they wish. No patent to expire, no transfer of the IP to the public domain. For as long as the secret can be kept.

Of course, there's no legal protection from reverse-engineering a trade secret. Somebody who RE'd Coke's formula would not only be free to use it but could patent it as well. The patent holder might even be able to sue Coke for patent infringement.

Because trade secrets are not a respected form of IP.

- Patents serve to provide a temporary shelter for monopolizing new ideas and methodologies to allow them to be developed

- Trademarks serve to guarantee consumers can differentiate products and their producers

- Copyright serves to allow people to make money from creative works while distributing them widely.

Trade secrets? Trade secrets allow a company to monopolize a market with no benefit to the public in the long run. They deserve exactly zero legal protections.

The U.S. patent office disagrees with you and notes that the U.S is obligated to protect trade secrets [1].

The Coca-Cola company and defendants Williams and Dimson might differ, as well [2].

[1] https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-...

[2] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1234095.html

There is no merit. It's for capital only. Almost everything should be public domain.

What real negative effect does the OP article have on society? None, it's actually likely beneficial, just again not for the already super wealthy.

>What real negative effect does the OP article have on society?

All capital intensive innovation (i.e. anything hardware related) effectively comes to a full stop. The potential returns on capital are the only reason people invest in these companies in the first place.

It takes a shocking amount of mental gymnastics to think billions are going to be spent trying new technologies if second comers can just steal the working result for free.

> There is no merit. It's for capital

Sounds like a self-contradictory position to the vast majority that consider capital as merit.