> Primary incentives embodied in the patent system include incentives to invent in the first place; to disclose the invention once made; to invest the sums necessary to experiment, produce and market the invention; and to design around and improve upon earlier patents.
This is two goals, stated as four:
1. There should be more technology developed under a patent system than otherwise.
2. People should stop keeping their technology secret.
> Main article: History of patent law
> Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1450, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers.
Goal #2 is the origin of the system, and the only goal that the system directly addresses.
So let's take a common example of a trade secret protected by American law: a company's customer list.
I don't see the argument that businesses wouldn't bother developing customers in the absence of trade secret law. Nor do I see why protecting that information is in the interest of anyone outside that particular company. It's definitely contrary to the interests of the customers.
The Uniform Trade Secrets Act explicitly states that it's intended to protect businesses who believe that their information is nonpatentable:
> "In view of the substantial number of patents that the courts invalidate, many businesses now elect to protect commercially valuable information by relying on the state trade secret protection law."
And hey, for secrets like a customer list those businesses are surely correct. But who cares? Trade secrets are by definition something the business felt was worth the effort of developing regardless of patentability concerns. Any hypothetical benefits to society are, at best, extremely precarious -- that's why we have patent law. Trade secret protections are an undisguised, pointless giveaway, and they undermine the goals of the patent system.
This is two goals, stated as four:
1. There should be more technology developed under a patent system than otherwise.
2. People should stop keeping their technology secret.
> Main article: History of patent law
> Patents were systematically granted in Venice as of 1450, where they issued a decree by which new and inventive devices had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers.
Goal #2 is the origin of the system, and the only goal that the system directly addresses.
So let's take a common example of a trade secret protected by American law: a company's customer list.
I don't see the argument that businesses wouldn't bother developing customers in the absence of trade secret law. Nor do I see why protecting that information is in the interest of anyone outside that particular company. It's definitely contrary to the interests of the customers.
The Uniform Trade Secrets Act explicitly states that it's intended to protect businesses who believe that their information is nonpatentable:
> "In view of the substantial number of patents that the courts invalidate, many businesses now elect to protect commercially valuable information by relying on the state trade secret protection law."
And hey, for secrets like a customer list those businesses are surely correct. But who cares? Trade secrets are by definition something the business felt was worth the effort of developing regardless of patentability concerns. Any hypothetical benefits to society are, at best, extremely precarious -- that's why we have patent law. Trade secret protections are an undisguised, pointless giveaway, and they undermine the goals of the patent system.