The Harm Caused By Patent Disclosure

from the willful-infringement dept

Alan Wexelblat has an interesting post over at the Copyfight blog. After participating in a mailing list discussion about some new patents, he's rather stunned to learn that many firms forbid their employees from looking at published patents. He thinks the lawyers are confused about the difference between trade secrets and patents -- but that's probably not true. What's most likely happening is that the lawyers know that you get treble damages if you can prove willful infringement, and you do that by showing that the infringer knew of the patent. So, the way you avoid that is you don't look at any patents. This is exactly the opposite of what the patent system is supposed to be about. In fact, many patent system defenders insist that "public disclosure" is the key benefit of the patent system -- but that's a complete myth. David Levine and Michele Boldrin have already shown why patents are unlikely to increase the disclosure of inventions (because the only people who will disclose are those who know their "invention" would become public no matter what, otherwise they're better off keeping it secret), while other reports point out that patent attorneys are increasingly focused on filing vague patents that can cover lots of things, without actually disclosing anything useful. Now we can add this growing fear of willful infringement to the reasons that public disclosure isn't what it's cracked up to be -- and, in fact, may be hurting innovation by forcing those knowledgeable in a space to ignore the state of the art to avoid the possibility of huge fines for willful infringement.

Filed Under: disclosure, patents


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Robert Inkol, 19 Aug 2007 @ 9:16am

    Re: This is standard in some buisnesses.

    I don't doubt this. I work for a government R&D lab and have spent some time searching through patents related to my work. The reality is that a substantial proportion of patents that have been awarded in recent years are:

    a. general descriptions of concepts that have been around for years or decades, but were never patented because they were considered to be obvious;
    b. minor updates of an older concept by the straightforward application of a recent technology.

    This situation has become really noticeable in defense technologies. I think one motivation is that, in some jurisdictions, government R&D contracts and procurements can be sole sourced on grounds of proprietary IP.

    The bottom line is that significant ideas that are in a usable form aren't that common.

    Robert

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.