Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Rocky Patent Horror Show (Part Deux)

We continue with our "stepped back" look at Janet Beth's scholarly work by focusing attention on this next paragraph at page 127:
What if we could reform the application process and guarantee better patents before costly litigation? What if we could ensure that only the most worthwhile inventions received twenty years of monopoly rights? What if we could offer a way to protect inventors’ investments while still safeguarding the market from bad patents? What if we could give the scientific community a voice in determining whether an invention was truly novel or obvious? What if we could make informed decisions about the scientifically complex issues posed by patent law before the fact?
What an interesting turn of phrase: "only the most worthwhile inventions". From what little I recall of logic and language construction, there can be only one invention that qualifies as the "mostest". All other inventions are at best, disgruntled runner ups in this beauty pageant. So which invention measures up? Which is the "mostest"? Sliced bread, the telegraph or the light bulb? All other inventions clearly need to wither away in the brilliance of these golden standards. And then of course, there is the promise of a money-back "guarantee" from this new peer-to-peer process. Somehow, the "truth" will come out as to which inventions are "truly" novel and "truly" nonobvious. Finally, but not the least important of points, "the markets" will be "safegaurded" just as surely as they are from bad meat and securities fraud. Now I feel so much safer with Janet Beth's peer-peer system in place to safeguard little 'ole me. After all, this is what it's about isn't it? It's all about "safeguarding" the little guy. Page 131, the stepped back examination continues:
An industry has arisen in Patent “Trolling,” where Participants Seek Patents Solely for the PurpoSe of Initiating Infringement lawsuits and extorting licensing fees from competitors without Producing any Product or bringing any Innovation to The Market. ... This means, for example, that the oil industry could patent solar energy inventions that will be put on the shelf and never used. Since “anything under the sun” can be patentable subject matter and more people are filing patents than ever before, the field is fertile for companies seeking to patent undeserving inventions and to profit from the threat of litigation rather than from productive research and development. Of course, patenting activity may also reflect productive invention. But a low quality patent over a fundamental research method, if issued, runs the risk of impeding downstream invention and hampering scientific innovation.
So there you have it. Janet is protecting us little guys from those evil, extortionist "trolls". You know how you read about it in the papers all the time. Some poor, penniless business man who is struggling to make his daily payroll is suddenly swept away by an under-the-bridge, low handed "Troll" who was sitting there with one Sole and souless intent festering in his troll-like corpse: to extort the life blood out of unwary innocents. In the mean time, the richest and most wealthy of corporations are never bothered by independent innovators (where the latter are conveniently transmuted from human beings into "trolls" thanks to the efforts of the corporate mind squads). Oh no. It is not possible that such corporations could be funding the "scholarly" and objective research of unbiased academicians. I would be shocked, shocked to think that something of this underhanded sort might take place in this great country of ours. I would be even more shocked to discover that trusted scholars are being encouraged to repeat certain catch phrases in their works over and over again. In Janet Beth's scholastic article: "peer" ... 127 times "scien"[ce]... 103 times "public" ... 85 times "community" .. 73 times "expert" .... 64 times "technolog"[y}. 51 times "quality" .... 46 times "REFORM" ..... 31 times "obvious" .... 26 times "innov"[ation].. 19 times "valu"[e] ... 18 times "social" ... 15 times "trust" .... 12 times "collective" .. 9 times "bad" .... 6 times "troll" ...... 2 times "worth" [-while, worthy] ... 6 times "examiner" ... 99 times "invent" ... 80 times Worse yet. I would be Profoundly Shocked, Perplexed and Stuperfied to discover some underlying psycho-linguistic implant Pattern (P-S-P-S-P-S) that accidentlay and out of toal random coincidence became fundamentally and collectively integrated into the writing.

3 comments:

step back said...

"Obviously" this New York Times article on how the human brain works has nothing to do with the topics discussed hereinafter.

Repetition. Framing. Spinning. None of that has anything to do with patents. The "people" who operate in the patent realm are dispassionate robotoids, totally immune to each and all of the Madison Avenue tricks played by the corporate mind squads.

We each have a Brain.

We each know exactly how it operates.

Heck. We've been driving one our whole lifetime! Never had an accident or even a minor scratch. All cylinders are in top notch condition. Everything we say and do is 101% rational.

I know what I know and I'm not going to let facts get in the way.

"troll"
"quality"
"reform"
"obvious"
"only the most worthwhile"

Don't think. Just accept.

step back said...

How some scholars approach the question of open honesty:

According to this New York Times piece, one can be quite at peace with presenting themselves as something they are not (an evolutionist rather than a creationist) because it is merely a "paradigm" shift.

I can already see the court room of the future:

"Forgive me your honor, not only for being an orphan after having killed my parents, but also because I underwent a "paradigm shift" at the time."

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Anonymous said...

...please where can I buy a unicorn?