zlacker

> Sure, I suppose someone could develop/copy something in parallel with no knowledge.

I mean that’s a tad disingenuous as to how it worked before patents. Patents were meant to dissuade others from copying inventions for a certain set period. It was much rarer to see independent development of the same technology (not that it didn’t happen).

>>master+(OP)
We agree that it's a rare edge case. That's why the rationale of IP protection works. Before patents, important knowledge was lost because people didn't want to divulge it because they had no IP protection. Back then, everything was a trade/state secret.

I guess I'm not seeing the point made. If you agree it wasn't developed in parallel, you copied it from your previous employer. If it was their IP, you likely committed a civil wrong, and they can sue you. I can only see your point if you don't believe IP exists.

>>bumby+91
I wasn’t making any point. Just that that the initial patent example isn’t a good one to use.

>>master+24
u/akira2501 was providing a bad equivalency by saying both the company and employee has knowledge of a product, therefore either both (or neither) gets to claim it as property.

A patent is an example that shows why that is a bad principle. The point of a patent is to share knowledge, but it also gives claims of ownership (for a period) to only a specific party. So obviously "knowledge of a product/process" isn't the discriminator. The important portion of a patent that distinguishes what is owned is literally called its "claims." My point is that whether or not you have knowledge does not lay claim to ownership, contrary to u/akira2501's question/point.