Articles on patent reform as predicted in Posner's July 31 review
In his July 31 book review, Judge Posner noted: Being profit-driven, the media respond to the actual demands of their audience rather than to the idealized ''thirst for knowledge'' demand posited by public intellectuals and deans of journalism schools. They serve up what the consumer wants, and the more intense the competitive pressure, the better they do it.
Academic discussion of patent reform in the last few years shows similar tendencies. The "media" (academic journals) served up a regular horror story to "consumers" (the FTC, the NAS, and ultimately Congress) about an out-of-control patent system that was granting patents on 97% of all applications submitted. Although the USPTO was financially strapped by fee diversion, the focus was on incompetent examiners granting patents on peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. A proposed solution was to create a new obstacle for the patentee, one of opposition, which would have been of little benefit to Albie's Restaurant, the defendant in an infringement suit brought by Smucker, holder of the peanut butter and jelly patent.
Posner also wrote:
Were this true, liberals would read conservative newspapers, and conservatives liberal newspapers, just as scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them. But that is not how ordinary people (or, for that matter, scientists) approach political and social issues. The issues are too numerous, uncertain and complex, and the benefit to an individual of becoming well informed about them too slight, to invite sustained, disinterested attention. Moreover, people don't like being in a state of doubt, so they look for information that will support rather than undermine their existing beliefs. They're also uncomfortable seeing their beliefs challenged on issues that are bound up with their economic welfare, physical safety or religious and moral views.
Not all scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them. Schon didn't. The DNA fingerprinting (profiling) advocates did not talk about the downsides. The early buckyball advocates didn't talk about the oxidation issue. People, whether scientists or jurors or others, don't like being in a state of doubt, so they look for information that will support rather than undermine their first-formed, existing beliefs. You don't have to look further than patent reform 2005.
Academic discussion of patent reform in the last few years shows similar tendencies. The "media" (academic journals) served up a regular horror story to "consumers" (the FTC, the NAS, and ultimately Congress) about an out-of-control patent system that was granting patents on 97% of all applications submitted. Although the USPTO was financially strapped by fee diversion, the focus was on incompetent examiners granting patents on peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches. A proposed solution was to create a new obstacle for the patentee, one of opposition, which would have been of little benefit to Albie's Restaurant, the defendant in an infringement suit brought by Smucker, holder of the peanut butter and jelly patent.
Posner also wrote:
Were this true, liberals would read conservative newspapers, and conservatives liberal newspapers, just as scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them. But that is not how ordinary people (or, for that matter, scientists) approach political and social issues. The issues are too numerous, uncertain and complex, and the benefit to an individual of becoming well informed about them too slight, to invite sustained, disinterested attention. Moreover, people don't like being in a state of doubt, so they look for information that will support rather than undermine their existing beliefs. They're also uncomfortable seeing their beliefs challenged on issues that are bound up with their economic welfare, physical safety or religious and moral views.
Not all scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them. Schon didn't. The DNA fingerprinting (profiling) advocates did not talk about the downsides. The early buckyball advocates didn't talk about the oxidation issue. People, whether scientists or jurors or others, don't like being in a state of doubt, so they look for information that will support rather than undermine their first-formed, existing beliefs. You don't have to look further than patent reform 2005.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home