I have a smidgen of something to say about the controversy over patents, and along with an increasing number of areas of expertise, I tend to believe that we're dumbing down and selling out the Patent Office. It's not the Office itself, but the entire kit and caboodle, case law, special courts and all that. We have a problem that bigger than our willingness to stick to some principles and insure that smart and disciplined people manage it. Surely someone will figure a way to outsource it to India.
The fundamental question I have has to deal with the level of responsibility begged by patenting the obvious, And I think it is a question that is related directly to the other question before the courts these days which is the regulation of 'greenhouse gasses'.
What cannot be monetized? The answer is nothing. So long as we can express human ambition and desire through the investment of treasure, people will put their monies where their mouths are. But the ever increasingly pressing question is how can I make a million and survive? The answer is through building something quick and dirty and getting enough of a jump on the competition so that your company can be acquired by people with enough sense to look a bit further into the future than you - or at least have the skill in managing a business or a product well enough to squeeze actual revenue out of it, rather than just cashing in on the idea. But since actual companies who manage products and people have competition as well, they must have a leg up on the competition - which is to say a legal leg up. For in the end, our economy is one of broadcasters and marketers, companies who are about equal in building, but getting to market is what matters, and it is because of this phenomenon that the culture of invention is a wholly owned subsidiary, not of necessity but of the Business Business.
But while human desire is infinite and in the species of human called 'homo consumus', endlessly manipulatable. In spite of this, human needs are fairly fixed. And so I wonder how much of the American GDP attends to needs and how much attends to desire. My guess is 2/5 need over desire. So perhaps there are wealthy marketing mavens at Procter and Gamble who understand that they should keep their legal department harassing all those in favor of legalizing prostitution. If enough men and women.. err, consumers.. figured out that bouncing and behaving hair is not really desirable in comparison to the delectables of the world's oldest profession, well it could be a disaster for Madison Avenue. That is, if they don't get the Heidi Fleiss account. Chances are, of course that this edge of the GDP will flourish quite well without broadcast advertising, as does internet porn and the marijuana business.
So why do we continue to live with the conceit that our entire economy can be leveraged by constant invention? Is this the kind of balance we should deliver, in which every generation can expect to live in greater comfort, with newer shinier kitchens? You should know that presently the answer is yes, or at least to the crowd that has managed to sell out self-stirring mugs. Surely there is a patent on this device, and surely only one company can sell it, and surely any lazy teenager could engineer one. It's obvious. And it is this same kind of obviousness that can continue to be marketed, and whose market will be protected by those of us foolish enough to live on and invest in the cutting edge of luxury.
But in a way I'm not sure how to define, I am a Conservative who says that constant and mindless innovation is but the froth at the edge of the ocean. Oh, surely it's the place where water most combines with air and rock to provide the music of the surf and the constant erosion of the land. The shore changes most and provides the waves over which the adventurous ride, but the fate of the ocean is its middle and its unchanging depth. And the greatest beasts of the ocean reside and thrive within its deep currents. On the cutting edge of the oceans, great whales die.
I am not against invention. For ironically invention of the new as it fills the market like songs by Britney Spears, lower the price of less popular, better music. But then there comes a tipping point at which preservation of the classic becomes more expensive and less profitable than creation of the novel. At that point, our heritage is jeopardized. And it is this game of jeopardy we can't long afford to play.
You recall the addage: make new friends and keep the old. Let's not try to make silver into gold.
Recent Comments