undefined | Better HN

0 pointsHarryHirsch8y ago0 comments

They could have used trade secrets. Konrad Zuse tells the story that back then, optical equipment manufacturers used to contract him for computations. Instead of rooms full of mechanical calculators operated by humans (the original "computers") they would supply his company with data and algorithms and he would reply back with results.

Apparently, there were design reasons why for electronic calculations a different mathematical formulation was more efficient. The competing manufacturers would discover this fact one by one, and Zuse was worried that someone may question his integriry, thinking he was the source of the leak. But no one did.

Michael Hanack (the materials chemist) used a different strategy: he would not patent anything so his inventions could be used my any market participant, and he would consult for all of them.

On the other hand, everyone is looking forward to the day the aptamer patent runs out. Uptake is limited (and you'd think that CRISPR/CAS9 has the same problem) because of unreasonableness (in case of CRISPR uncertainty) around licensing.

0 comments

Chaebixi8y ago

Trade secrets are worse because then the design never gets disclosed, and has to be rediscovered. Time limited patents are a good and explicit trade off between the personal benefit of the inventor and the benefit of society.

> Michael Hanack (the materials chemist) used a different strategy: he would not patent anything so his inventions could be used my any market participant, and he would consult for all of them.

That won't work if the invention is easily copied. Chemistry is tricky and there's probably plenty of money to be made in consulting in it. A lot of industries aren't like that.

HarryHirschOP8y ago

Trade secrets are worse because then the design never gets disclosed, and has to be rediscovered

In the sciences you'll notice that simultaneous discoveries are nothing unusual, once the groundwork is laid the idea hangs in the air, you do nothing but reach out and catch it. The Zuse example is just another instance.

In the case of mathematics and computing, the invention can be copied easily by development costs are minimal as well. These is no compelling reason why someone should reap disproportionate rewards from a government-supported artificial monopoly. Progress suffers and the economy as well.

Chaebixi8y ago

> In the case of mathematics and computing, the invention can be copied easily by development costs are minimal as well. These is no compelling reason why someone should reap disproportionate rewards from a government-supported artificial monopoly. Progress suffers and the economy as well.

Yes there is: because of the effort of invention. The effort required to copy is irrelevant. Also, by arguing against patents, you're basically arguing that Intel and the like should get a huge payday at the expense of this guy's efforts.

Patents only last for 20 years [1], and it's not like progress stops when they're in force. Have some patience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

api8y ago

That's much worse for tons of reasons. The extreme version of that is a guild system and a bunch of secret societies, which is basically why the ancient world never industrialized. Egypt, Greece, and Rome had the basic knowledge for the industrial revolution (including maybe even electricity, search for Baghdad battery) but it was locked up in cloistered priesthoods who kept it very close to their vest. In many cases leaking such knowledge was punishable by gruesome death.

Offering an alternative to that is why the patent system was created. The idea is you publish and in return get a monopoly for a short period of time. Of course the system is abused (all systems are abused), but the reasons for its creation were actually quite "liberal."

kbenson8y ago

This is meant to be implemented in a processor. I'm not sure how you would keep it secret from end users, much less from the company tasked with implementing it at the chip level, and their engineers, which might find employment at different companies in the future. This seems like a very poor for for a trade secret if you ask me.

TallGuyShort8y ago

He could use trade secrets and still have people on HN bitch about not liking what he did with his own idea.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsHarryHirsch8y ago0 comments

Michael Hanack (the materials chemist) used a different strategy: he would not patent anything so his inventions could be used my any market participant, and he would consult for all of them.

0 comments

Chaebixi8y ago

> Michael Hanack (the materials chemist) used a different strategy: he would not patent anything so his inventions could be used my any market participant, and he would consult for all of them.

That won't work if the invention is easily copied. Chemistry is tricky and there's probably plenty of money to be made in consulting in it. A lot of industries aren't like that.

HarryHirschOP8y ago

Trade secrets are worse because then the design never gets disclosed, and has to be rediscovered

Chaebixi8y ago

Patents only last for 20 years [1], and it's not like progress stops when they're in force. Have some patience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

api8y ago

kbenson8y ago

TallGuyShort8y ago

He could use trade secrets and still have people on HN bitch about not liking what he did with his own idea.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse