|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
I'm not really sure what it's trying to state. It could be read as a dig at the
abysmal quality of what the USPTO deems 'novel' these days, or it could be an
attempt to push a myth of 'true originality' and hold that anyone who uses
anything patented in anything they make, however significant a difference in
scope might be present, is clearly derivative and therefore not 'inventing'
anything at all. I'm reminded a bit of how certain parties advance hypocritical
views on copyright infringement, considering the originality and relevance of
their own works beyond question (despite deriving in many ways from various
sources) but decrying anything they perceive as having benefited from their work
without their blessing as immoral and bordering on plagiarism.
So, probably-tangential rant aside, I have to say that criticizing the
misappropriation of language in a way that makes its meaning unclear or possibly
inverted, in such a way as to make the nature of the criticism impossible to
discern, makes the grandparent post either pretty silly, or a masterful work of
subtle irony. I'll have to leave readers to decide that one for themselves.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|