In a "Nova Nation", energy; for lack of a better term,
is produced
by the incantation of
innovative words.
Sen. Murkowski (at 29:57): "Let's use our ingenuity to advance ... an all-of-the above approach ... spend more on innovation"
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING: The Government's Role in Energy Innovation (SD-36 --the meeting starts at 25:47 into the video, so click there to view. "About" the Committee is here.)
Two Smarter-than-a-5th-Grader
words appear in this post's title:
"vicarious" and "innovator".
If you recall your high school SAT study guide, one of the meanings associated with "vicarious" is that of "delegating" to others (to your vicar, if you are king) an accomplishment that you later pretend to have had yourself.
Our public discourse is filled with vicarious "we" talk.
Example:
"If we are to remain the strongest nation on Earth, we must remain the most innovative nation on Earth"
--a 2012 US Presidential candidate.
Another example:
“None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.”
--President Barack Obama, The State of the Union, 1/25/11
Indeed, there are some
who believe "innovation"
naturally grows on a forest
full of many fruitful trees,
all placed there by
the "ingenuity"-rich "we".
They believe that a band of
terrifying "trolls"
then run amok through these forests,
plucking the otherwise "naturally" occurring fruits
and hording the same for their greedy selves.
[W]e have created a [broken] patent system that gives innovators a temporary monopoly overwhat they create, which encourages them to hoard their knowledge, lest they help a competitor.
--Joseph Stiglitz
For you see, there is no "inventor" inside of "inNOvation".
It is the ingenious "WE" who vicariously create all the "inNOvation".
"Inventors" are merely greedy hoarding trolls who take false credit for what the ingenious "WE" vicariously created through mental manipulation of their robot bodies.
They deserve nothing.
"WE", the vicarious "innovators" deserve it all.
Bwaaahaha.
(... post is still under construction)
This week the number 5 weighs heavy
in US patent law.
May 5th (Cinco de Mayo) will mark roughly 5 years and 5 days since the infamous KSR v. Teleflex decision.
The (AIA) 'Seeds of Chucky' revealed their true colors this week ...
It was a fab five who rendered the bombastic Bilski decision (though it could have been much worse had the more anti-inventor other 4 had their way).
And then we have the newest creme de la creme of patent logic signed by all 9 of the anti-inventor Amigos: Mayo v. Prometheus (MVP) ....
Oh to have been that proverbial fly on the wall and listened in as the 9 Amigos deliberated over the fate of pharama in the MvP star chamber.
Perhaps it went like this (a fictional dramatization)
Chief Justice Roberts: Sonia, you used to be married to a patent attorney, right? What the heck is a patent any way?
Associate Justice Scalia: I think I can help on that score because this history buff and medium does pay attention. Each night before I go to sleep, I talk things over with our Founding Fathers. I mentioned to them this business about not letting physicians bleed their patients as they wish.
Need I say that the FF's (Founding Fathers) were almost rolling out of their resting places? Why it is imperative and part of the Natural Laws that a doctor has every right to excise the harmful humors from an ill body. I say we put a stop to this outrage!
Associate Justice Kennedy: Whoa. Hold up there my brother Anton. I too am a medium or moderate of sorts. While I don't nightly consult with our FF's, I fear we may be going to far and too fast. Perhaps at the end of the day we need to outlaw the use of patents for anything and everything having to do with medicine. But at least for now, can't we come up with a more measured approach? I liked what you said about the "Natural Laws". And I liked what Sonia said about a patent claim reciting to an audience. Can we somehow combine those ideas and come up with a compromise?
Associate Justice Thomas: [nods head in agreement]
Associate Justice Breyer: While I am a bleeding heart liberal, I must in this case agree with my artery bleeding brother Scalia. We cannot let this patent law stuff interfere with a doctor's right to treat his patients as he wills, be it with 18th century medicine or something slightly more modern. I think I see a way to combine this idea of "Natural Laws" and of what a "patent claim" recites to its audience so as to reign in inventors who claim too broad of a taking from the public's right to Obama care. Why don't you guys let me chisel out the first draft? If you like it, sign it and put the final blame on me. OK?
Associate Justice Alito: My comic sense tells me I should leave my comedian's routine out of this.
Associate Justice Breyer: I'll include that notion in there as well.
Outcome: And so it came to pass that the Supreme Court wisely ruled that a patent claim is something that recites to an audience of doctors what the invention is and when it recites only "Natural Laws" and "routine" other things then it fails to genuinely recite that extra something significantly "more" which raises it to the level of deserving and being "eligible" for a patent.
Public acclaim: Moreover, the enlightened public was full of praise for the clear guidance that the 9 Amigos had once again cast over the confusing land of patenthood. (Click on image to the left)
to be continued ...
