>>11746627 pb

>>11746688 pb

>>11746698 pb

Last night anon disputed a post about the assignment of patents to the CCP bank. This topic really needs to be cleared up.

1. The information in a patent is public. Everyone can read the patent. A patent is SUPPOSED to teach those with skill in the art how to implement the invention.

2 A patent-holder has the ability to control WHO can USE the invention for a period of time. They can implement the patent themselves of course, they can license the patent to others for $$, or they can refrain from licensing it in order to control the technology.

1. Eventually a patent expires and then anyone can implement it.

A patent does not contain secrets. By its nature it is PUBLIC.

Assigning patents to a foreign entity (or anyone) makes the assignee the "owner" of the technology. That means they have the ability to implement it (presumably, it was already implemented in code before the assignment was made.) It also means they have the ability to license it to others, or refrain from licensing it in order to control who gets to use the invention.

Everyone seems to have jumped on the idea that assigning the patents meant China now had control over some secrets that they did not have prior to the assignment. That is the idea that I am taking issue with.

/patent law anon/

>>11750842

>>11750809

Anons seem a little confused.

A (software or hardware) patent tells HOW to implement an idea or scheme. A patent is not an implementation.

A patent is public. Anyone can get a copy of the patent and read the patent and study it and possibly figure out how to implement it, if they have sufficient background (which is called "skill in the art"). A patent will not be granted unless it is specific and detailed enough to teach the invention to those skilled in the art.

But you generally cannot make a complete working implementation from a patent. You have to apply what is called "skill in the art" which includes the ancillary knowledge of how to embed that idea in a larger piece of code and/or hardware.

Code and hardware are often / usually kept as a proprietary trade secret.

Having ownership of a patent would give someone the RIGHT to use the patented technology in any way they see fit, or to control who else is allowed to implement it. (Until the patent expires.)

It is obvious to me that everyone wants to study the code and hardware. I would want to study it too.

You have to understand that having access/control over certain patents / intellectual property is not the same as having the code or the hardware.

To understand if CCP took ownership of code and/or hardware, you'd have to find a legal agreement and study its terms and conditions. That would not be a public document. So there is no way for us to learn exactly what (other) technology such as code or hardware, might have been transferred to the CCP. This is distinct from patent assignment and is not indicated, one way or the other, by patent assignment.

/patent anon/

>>11750967

No. I hate the Deep State from the bottom of my heart.

But I take issue with anons making inferences that are unjustified, due to their lack of understanding.