The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

[istodolez]

I infer that you were never tapped for a leadership role.
I was in such roles, in both public and private sectors, from 1983 to 2017.

Can I infer that you have never gotten a patent?

Do you know why I ask that? I will assume you are sufficiently familiar with the importance of the inventor in the US Patent system? The inventor has to have been involved in the CONCEPTION of the invention, but that isn't merely having an "idea". Indeed conception is defined as "the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice.." It is so much more than just blathering until something dribbles out that someone else can make a reality. (The appropriate court case that underlies this is Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292, 295, 4 USPQ 269, 271 (CCPA 1930) ).

That is why it is often that directors and managers are NOT included as inventors in the US patent system. Sometimes they are, but that is likely because they had the TECHNICAL EXPERTISE to fulfill the needs of conception, not just blather on in meetings speaking about things they know not. In fact including inventors who are not truly inventors in the US system can actually cost the validity of the patent. Fortunes are sometimes lost over incorrect inventorship.

When Raytheon asked for my "operator perspective" that put idea generation on my plate.
I'm not going to indulge this tangent further.

Indulge or not, only one of us has actually had to make an idea WORK. It is actually quite crucial for people who were given positions of authority not confuse their roles with the roles of those who actually need to MAKE the value the company required to function.

 

[Jack Hays]

Can I infer that you have never gotten a patent?

Do you know why I ask that? I will assume you are sufficiently familiar with the importance of the inventor in the US Patent system? The inventor has to have been involved in the CONCEPTION of the invention, but that isn't merely having an "idea". Indeed conception is defined as "the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied in practice.." It is so much more than just blathering until something dribbles out that someone else can make a reality. (The appropriate court case that underlies this is Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292, 295, 4 USPQ 269, 271 (CCPA 1930) ).

That is why it is often that directors and managers are NOT included as inventors in the US patent system. Sometimes they are, but that is likely because they had the TECHNICAL EXPERTISE to fulfill the needs of conception, not just blather on in meetings speaking about things they know not. In fact including inventors who are not truly inventors in the US system can actually cost the validity of the patent. Fortunes are sometimes lost over incorrect inventorship.



Indulge or not, only one of us has actually had to make an idea WORK. It is actually quite crucial for people who were given positions of authority not confuse their roles with the roles of those who actually need to MAKE the value the company required to function.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

 

[istodolez]

I infer that you were never tapped for a leadership role.
I was in such roles, in both public and private sectors, from 1983 to 2017.
When Raytheon asked for my "operator perspective" that put idea generation on my plate.
I'm not going to indulge this tangent further.

I want to make one more clarification. It is not necessary for the inventor to be the one who reduces the invention to practice, but given that the Townsend criteria are "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention" that does point toward technical expertise sufficient to have arrived at that position.

I have personally turned down offers to be listed as a co-inventor on a couple of patents precisely because I didn't feel I had risen to the point of adding substantially to the conception, even though my additions were of value to the overall invention.

It is also why we caution our inventors to make sure not to include their boss simply because it would be the political thing to do, or because their boss was sitting around in a meeting one day tossing out random ideas. Improper inventorship can lead to invalidation of a patent. And that includes adding inventors who were not true inventors as well as leaving true inventors off.

This is why it is insufficient for someone to simply have an "idea" without technical expertise of any sort.

 

[istodolez]

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

No, it is directly addressing your point about ideas and technical expertise.

I can understand if you have never created something that made it to patentability, it's not an easy task. But, again, it underlies this view that being an "idea person" can be a real job in the absence of technical expertise.

Personally I think you WERE an expert in whatever you were leading your teams on but your bizarre insistence that technical expertise is ancillary boggles the mind.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, it is directly addressing your point about ideas and technical expertise.

I can understand if you have never created something that made it to patentability, it's not an easy task. But, again, it underlies this view that being an "idea person" can be a real job in the absence of technical expertise.

Personally I think you WERE an expert in whatever you were leading your teams on but your bizarre insistence that technical expertise is ancillary boggles the mind.

All patents developed by Raytheon employees are Raytheon property.
The fact that your mind is boggled by a commonplace observation is something of note.

 

[istodolez]

All patents developed by Raytheon employees are Raytheon property.

Correction: all employees of Raytheon are required to ASSIGN their patents to Raytheon. This is standard operating procedure among almost all corporations that do R&D.

In US Patent Law inventors are still "sacred". The assignment is merely who owns the patent and that is established per employment agreements or the physical assignment.

Even if Raytheon owns all the patents if someone were to do due diligence and find that the inventorship of the patent was not wholly accurate it can result in the patent being invalidated. It is easily corrected but that costs money and effort.

The fact that your mind is boggled by a commonplace observation is something of note.

The fact that you find my position strange is sobering.

 

[Jack Hays]

New Evidence That the Ancient Climate Was Warmer than Today’s
2 hours ago

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of…

 

[istodolez]

New Evidence That the Ancient Climate Was Warmer than Today’s
2 hours ago

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of…

The Roman Warm Period was apparently not global but a relatively localized variability which happens a lot but is not the same as global warming.

For a long time, many took on faith the idea that these phenomena were global. But that assumption has been undermined in the past decade or so by studies from widespread areas (including parts of Greenland) suggesting that in fact temperatures in many places did not line up with one or the other periods. Some regions appear to have been warming when they were supposed to be cooling, and vice versa. The same goes for two lesser-known, more vaguely defined earlier swings, known as the Roman Warm Period (ca. 100-300 AD) and the Dark Ages Cold Period (ca.400-800).

A new study puts together the evidence on a global scale for the first time. Based on this, the authors say that the supposed warm and cold epochs may represent, more than anything, regional variations that can be explained by random variability.

SOURCE: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/07/24/climate-epochs-that-werent/

The key point being global vs localized. As with so many things from the denialist and "skeptical" literature they leave out that CRUCIAL and VERY IMPORTANT point so that those with no understanding of the topic at a technical level will be easily led astray.

Too bad. But that is what happens when one enters into a discussion about topics they know nothing about.

 

[Jack Hays]

Kerry: False Prophet of Climate Apocalypse - Frank Lasee, RCEnergy