[dropit_sphere]

Worse, patent obfuscation is baldly contrary to the purpose of patents, which is to make the knowledge contained in them available to the public.

Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents.

[PythonicAlpha]

Most of today's patents don't contain any valuable knowledge that could be useful for the public. Also the invention does not. <irony>So it is not that bad.</irony>

Of course, there are some patents that could contain some valuable information, but today's patent attorneys are drilled to hide any valuable information from public.

[cushychicken]

That is actually part of the purpose of a patent attorney - to mention enough information about how the idea works that shows it's novel, but not enough that you can build a competitor. (According to a patent attorney I discussed this with a long time ago.)

Bass-ackwards, I know.

[pbhjpbhj]

If the information as to how the invention is performed isn't disclosed then the application lacks sufficiency - ie it doesn't support the claims - and so should be rejected according to most patent laws.

Remember that the document is directed to a skilled proponent in the relevant art and not to the public per se.

[yebyen]

You can completely describe a crucial innovation without which your product would not be original or compelling, without completely describing your product and giving an instruction manual to start from nothing and build a better competitor to your business.

In that case your "whole" business process or product would not be protected, but it is possible that by identifying the one thing you do better than your potential competitors and by patenting it in time, you could still stifle competition altogether or force your competitors to license your technology (without actually producing a really useful document for anyone who might have wanted to read it once the patent expired.)

[darkmighty]

I really doubt that in 20 years something would not be reversed engineered or trivial by then. Moreover, patents are usually functional specifications, not algorithmic. In the rare cases where the description is vital, like perhaps crypto or coding patents, the published software already allows reverse engineering.

Isn't the actual intention of patents to publicize the invention after the 20 years has gone by?

[yebyen]

No, that is the actual reason for a general (non-inventing) public to allow patents to exist, but that is not the point of patents.

The point of a patent is to grant a limited monopoly to a person who invests substantial resources in some innovation that was previously undiscovered; and yes, in exchange for full disclosure on what exactly the innovation is made of, they can be granted that exclusive right to collect license fees from those who needed to implement that innovation.

Reverse engineering can be a non-trivial effort. If the collective of all car manufacturers have failed to discover a novel way to make cars that (foo) and your invention is mainly a way to make cars (foo), there is no requirement to describe everything about and around the part that makes it (foo) in order to obtain the patent protection of (cars that _foo_). Those other car manufacturers then can either a) find a way to (foo) that doesn't use your (bar), b) pay you for your patented (foo/bar) tech, or c) go on selling cars that don't (foo) with a (bar). In twenty years, everyone who can make cars becomes free to use your (bar) to make their own cars that (foo).

If a (bar) that makes cars (foo) wasn't sufficiently described in the patent application then a patent should not have been granted. If the problem is that 20 years later, cars that work with a (bar) are no longer made by anyone, rendering the patent for (foo) useless, then that's a different problem and it can't be solved in the patent framework that we have now.

[cushychicken]

>In the rare cases where the description is vital, like perhaps crypto or coding patents,

This is a bit of a nitpicky thing, but patenting crypto isn't really a great way of protecting your secrets - hiding away the algorithm is basically security by obscurity. Crypto has historically been one of those things that's made stronger by more scrutiny.

[PythonicAlpha]

I also have my information from real patent attorneys.

This little example just shows, how distorted the whole patent system has already become. (and it is not the only example)

[cushychicken]

Wasn't trying to indict your point - just elaborating.

Agreed - the system appears pretty broken.

[rcthompson]

Why doesn't this run afoul of the enablement requirement?

[wyager]

>Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents.

What makes you say that this was the "original intent" of patents? I've never seen anything to suggest this. See the U.S. Constitution:

"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;"

Sounds like, even back then, it was more about incentivizing innovation by granting monopolies.

[chc]

It explicitly requires that there must be time limits. That isn't required if all you want to do is reward innovation. The time limits are required because the ultimate purpose is to enrich everyone, which means that everyone gets access once the inventor has gotten a fair shake. For patents in particular, it is well-established in the law (though poorly followed in practice) that a patent ought to serve as a guide to replicating the invention, with the inventor being assured that no one can do so without his permission until the patent expired.

[bad_user]

Unfortunately the time limits are useless if they are allowed to grow them indefinitely. In the US, the copyright length has extended from 14 years (with another renewal for 14 years) to life + 70 years. There's nothing fair in Life + 70 years.

On patents - they were meant to replace the need for trade secrets, unfortunately most patents that pass these days is for things that can be replicated without looking at the patent's application. And while I understand somewhat the need for patents in the health-care industry (only to a certain extent, since on the other hand access to quality health-care should be a basic right), the situation we are in is completely ridiculous.

In the end, the inventor already benefits by being first to market and a patent is only morally justified if the research costs were too big, allowing the inventor to recover those costs in the face of potential competition that may replicate the results and for which those costs weren't an issue. On the other hand, if patents would disappear tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that people would still go on, building and inventing things. So the benefit to society at large is questionable.

[benjiweber]

The intent was to incentivise /publishing/ of inventions/mechanisms rather than keeping them a secret. Thus allowing others to build on top of that knowledge.

One way to incentivise this is to grant a /temporary/ monopoly, and require people to publish in exchange. When the temporary monopoly expires everyone else can fully benefit from the invention.

[robin2]

> What makes you say that this was the "original intent" of patents?

The original meaning of the word "patent" might be a bit of a clue here.

The problem that patents tried to solve was of people keeping their innovations secret (in order to maintain an edge on their competitors), and that when they died their secrets died with them. Encouraging people to make public work they were doing anyway way, in the first instance, the way the patent system promoted progress.

[twic]

Sounds like a good site. You could call it Patently Obvious. A squatter (or at least absentee landlord) already has patent.ly, sadly.

[pbhjpbhj]

Re your last sentence - how do you know, they could be using it for email or for a private internet app, VPN, or something. You don't have to use domains for public web services.

[twic]

Simple, they're not using it for what i want it used for, so i am badmouthing them.

[Kliment]

Instead of badmouthing them, contact them and see if they like the idea.

[DanBC]

Here's a clue:

http://imgur.com/FcyIc4P

(I wonder if the HN traffic spike drives up the "value"?)

[TophWells]

Almost certainly. Supply, demand, and so on.