3 ms·
"One day, while he was pouring the weaker solution into a bulb, the phone rang. In the process of answering the phone, he accidentally tipped the bulb over befo
by benj111 8y ago
"One day, while he was pouring the weaker solution into a bulb, the phone rang. In the process of answering the phone, he accidentally tipped the bulb over before it had enough time to finish cleaning out the previous etching. When he returned to his work, he accidentally knocked the glass bulb off the workbench and onto the floor. To his surprise it did not shatter, as etched bulbs normally did, but bounced a few times and then rolled under the workbench"
I'm always intrigued by the cognitive dissonance in rewarding inventors for doing difficult things, then lauding them for accidentally stumbling upon something.
Yes I get that you make your own luck etc. But luck doesn't seem to be accounted for in our present IP system.
- namanyayg 8y agoSeems like you've higher chances on stumbling on something accidentally useful when you're trying to do difficult things rather than when not
- benj111 8y agoWell yes, that's what I was talking about with making your own luck. My point was that any discussion of IP revolves around work put in, and skill demonstrated. But a lot of the folklore is based on chance discovery.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoI'm not sure what you're suggesting - that we only award patents in cases where clear evidence of hard work can be provided?
- benj111 8y agoThat isn't what I was suggesting no. But... It is a fun thought experiment though. All those 'on a computer' patents become harder to justify. Whereas billions of dollars and man decades of effort to marginally improve a process becomes patentable. I guess it would tend to reward actual 'research' and investment rather than dashing of a patent on some half formed idea.
- radarthreat 8y agoThe process of inventing is basically controlled stumbling.