Not as I understand it. The intent was to provide an alternative to "trade secrets". In exchange for disclosing how your great new invention works, you get a limited monopoly on it.
Modern patents don't work this way. Seriously, who reads patents to learn who new inventions work? I'm sure there is someone who does but mostly they are just dense legal mumble-jumble. Also, it seems most of them are totally obvious that don't need a detailed explanation of the "invention".
>Seriously, who reads patents to learn who new inventions work?
I do sometimes, actually. But you're right that it's not a very understanding-conducive format. They're more concerned with making sure the claims are watertight than making sure the public can figure out what's going on in them.
They're more concerned with making sure the claims are watertight
As far as software patents go, if their claims are "watertight" it must be in some technical legal realm that is utterly removed from the field of invention. As software designs, the vast majority (that I've seen) are risible.
My understanding is that it can be dangerous for a company significantly affected by IP for its employees to read any patents. If that doesn't fly in the face ...
This is true. If you violate a patent while knowing about the patent you are violating you can be on the hook for triple (treble in lawyer-speak) damages compared to a violation where you didn't know of the patent previously.
For this reason, a lot of companies I've worked for have had a blanket policy requesting that software developers never read patents, especially in areas the company is working in.
Of course the fact that you can very easily violate many patents without having ever read them is just more evidence that the patent system isn't currently serving a useful purpose for anyone but patent trolls and lawyers.
I once read large parts of http://www.google.com/patents/US4614319 out of curiosity. The way it's written to actually explain the ideas shows up how most patents aren't.
Modern patents don't work this way. Seriously, who reads patents to learn who new inventions work? I'm sure there is someone who does but mostly they are just dense legal mumble-jumble. Also, it seems most of them are totally obvious that don't need a detailed explanation of the "invention".