Saturday, August 18, 2007

An infinity of stupidity?

In talking to Ron Katznelson about his upcoming article in Fed. Cir. B. J. [FCBJ], I learned that FCBJ allows a draft on SSRN to co-exist with the corresponding journal paper. Exactly this issue had been presented by Dan Hunter in Walled Gardens, 62 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 607 (2005) and in a letter to the California Law Review at Berkeley. "Walled Gardens" is itself available on SSRN.

But that was then, and this is now. In "Open Access to Infinite Content," (10 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 761), Dan Hunter presents an absolutely moronic vision of the future, moronic as to his own analysis and moronic as to what Hunter's publication approach will lead to.

Of student-run journals, if one thinks that having the Stanford Law Review declare that Gary Boone invented the integrated circuit is a good idea, then one will like Hunter's vision of infinite content, which is "infinite" access to unrefined stupidity.

Of Google's conception of ranking, which is a perversion of Garfield's science citation analysis, check out the content of the article How Does Solar Power Work?, which has been viewed 32,171 times in less than two years, even though the article mentions "the protons of the sunlight beat down onto the PV [photovoltaic] cell they knock the neutrons off the silicon." Recall Gresham's law, commonly stated as: "When there is a legal tender currency, bad money drives good money out of circulation."

Further, in a system in which everyone is concerned about getting hits, one will have mutual back-scratching societies to beat anything ever seen in the science literature. As Doody has pointed out in the context of intellectual property academics, the net result is everyone publishing different versions of the same thing (Doody's point being the repeated copying by many of themes in Jaffe and Lerner's Innovation and Its Discontents.) What has happened in intellectual property academic publishing establishes a variant of Gresham's Law in "open access to infinite content."

A recent dialog on IPBiz also illustrates relevant points:

Just to be clear, it was Aharonian suggesting that a movie script may be patentable. My blog entry had two parts-- reporting Aharonian's position as fairly as I could, and then poking a few holes in it.

Since my CNET blog is just getting started, I'd appreciate it if you'd do something for me. The link you used goes to a syndicated version of the piece. The original blog entry-- which is longer, and not so badly edited by some unknown person in Australia-- is here:

Concerning the CNET post, IPBiz had pointed out that Andrew Knight had already submitted a patent application on a storyline ("The Zombie Stare") AND he had even published an article in JPTOS on what he was doing, all of which had been ignored by the CNET poster. The poster's response was interesting:

1. It was Aharonian's idea.
2. I was poking holes in Aharonian's idea.
3. Please furnish the right link so I get hits.

IPBiz notes that Andrew Knight had "reduced Aharonian's idea to practice" before the commentary of Aharonian reported by the CNET poster, the CNET poster did not contemplate the arguments published by Knight in JPTOS (or in the published patent application or prosecution thereof), but the CNET poster was worried about hits to his own link. That's the nightmare world that Dan Hunter did not talk about in Open Access to Infinite Content.

As a small footnote, as of August 19, 2007, the link at
has NOT been updated to include any discussion about Andrew Knight. The reader of that site would not learn that what was hypothetically being discussed on that site had already been attempted at the USPTO and written about in JPTOS.

See also IPBiz posts:

At one point, the Monkees did "That was then, this is now."

[IPBiz post 3002]


Post a Comment

<< Home