> It had nothing to do with "encouraging innovation"
Technically disclosure is supposed to encourage innovation by allowing people to see what's up and then either choose to iterate on it (and wait till expiry to deploy the iteration) or "find a better way", either inspired by disclosed patent, or knowing that you have to skirt the bounds of the disclosed patent.
Open question about whether that actually works (I personally think the answer is no).
> all about disclosure
was post-hoc justified using disclosure.
> It had nothing to do with "encouraging innovation"
Technically disclosure is supposed to encourage innovation by allowing people to see what's up and then either choose to iterate on it (and wait till expiry to deploy the iteration) or "find a better way", either inspired by disclosed patent, or knowing that you have to skirt the bounds of the disclosed patent.
Open question about whether that actually works (I personally think the answer is no).