ext_6933 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-06-24 08:15 am
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-06-24 08:15 am
Entry tags:
The Politics of Neuromania: The Impotence of Vision
In a previous posting I considered the difference between science and engineering as a difference between theory and practicality. In considering the work of military contractors developing neural wave technology the issue of distinguishing between invention and engineering came up. The military engineers have been handed the task of devising an electronic gadget with the capacity to alter the thought patterns of a target individual. Are they inventing the machine or are they engineering it? What is the basic difference between the two activities?
Invention of a device has very strict legal implications. Once the device has been invented the inventor has no control over how it is subsequently used. The best she can hope for is material compensation for her "genius" in crafting the prototype. Two individuals working independently can craft the same device but only one of them will be recognized as the lawful inventor with intellectual property rights. The other inventor receives no compensation for her efforts and may lose further in the legal proceedings that ultimately determine the disposition of the intellectual property rights.
An American or British entrepreneur may have the vision to create a gadget that alters or restricts the thought patterns of an individual but that vision is powerless without a team of engineers who are ready, willing, and able to implement the vision. Once they come up with a prototype device the cat is out of the bag. The original visionary has no way to rein in how or where her invention is subsequently used. Other entrepreneurs will take the ball and run with it in completely unexpected directions. If the technique can control a mind, it can also de-control a mind. Anglo-American monopoly cannot be guaranteed outside of Anglo-American jurisprudence. An inexpensive Chinese version is inevitable.
Do you see the limits on intellectual property rights as a benefit or a hindrance to human progress? With whom do your sympathies lie: with the inventor or with the engineer?
Links: Claude Crampes and Corinne Languinier on patent enforcement issues.
Invention of a device has very strict legal implications. Once the device has been invented the inventor has no control over how it is subsequently used. The best she can hope for is material compensation for her "genius" in crafting the prototype. Two individuals working independently can craft the same device but only one of them will be recognized as the lawful inventor with intellectual property rights. The other inventor receives no compensation for her efforts and may lose further in the legal proceedings that ultimately determine the disposition of the intellectual property rights.
An American or British entrepreneur may have the vision to create a gadget that alters or restricts the thought patterns of an individual but that vision is powerless without a team of engineers who are ready, willing, and able to implement the vision. Once they come up with a prototype device the cat is out of the bag. The original visionary has no way to rein in how or where her invention is subsequently used. Other entrepreneurs will take the ball and run with it in completely unexpected directions. If the technique can control a mind, it can also de-control a mind. Anglo-American monopoly cannot be guaranteed outside of Anglo-American jurisprudence. An inexpensive Chinese version is inevitable.
Do you see the limits on intellectual property rights as a benefit or a hindrance to human progress? With whom do your sympathies lie: with the inventor or with the engineer?
Links: Claude Crampes and Corinne Languinier on patent enforcement issues.
Page 1 of 5