> Numerous patent authors have put deliberate errors in the patent to prevent copying.
Seems to me anyone discovered doing that should at the very least have their patent annulled and have to return all licensing fees they've made. The whole point of a patent - in theory, anyway - is it's a bargain, a contract between an inventor and the rest of society. In return for getting a monopoly on an idea for 20 years, you have to thoroughly publicly document it, so that after your 20 years is up, the idea becomes open to all.
Putting deliberate errors in a patent "to prevent copying" is trying to get the benefit of this bargain without paying the price. It's a fraud on society.
Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.[1] is interesting because Teva alleged that Pfizer broke that bargain in their Viagra patent.
The SCC sided with Teva, and in the news at the time it was reported that the patent was now invalid. However the SCC filed a clarification saying that they didn't rule the patent invalid, just that Pfizer's order against Teva producing a generic version was dismissed.
Seems to me anyone discovered doing that should at the very least have their patent annulled and have to return all licensing fees they've made. The whole point of a patent - in theory, anyway - is it's a bargain, a contract between an inventor and the rest of society. In return for getting a monopoly on an idea for 20 years, you have to thoroughly publicly document it, so that after your 20 years is up, the idea becomes open to all.
Putting deliberate errors in a patent "to prevent copying" is trying to get the benefit of this bargain without paying the price. It's a fraud on society.