创造或者毁灭（Create or Perish）

Excerpts from the Introduction:

Robert H. Rines wrote:
The American patent system needs no apologists. Though it may not be entirely suited in all respects to our current problems and needs, and though sometimes it may have been misused, its record of achievement in the progress of our country is indelibly written on the pages of history. Its current service, despite the fact that it is not being fully utilized in the second half of the century, seems to me equally indisputable; though some critics without firsthand experience in this field may not agree. Those critics are free to write their own books.

I have undertaken to write mine as a champion of the philosophy that today, as much as ever, incentives that make a person fight to be an individual promote the welfare the whole state. In my lectures, many of which have been included in this book, I frankly paint a picture, particularly for engineers and applied scientists, that is based on this philosophy and thus supports patents.

But invention, patents, and innovation cannot be treated apart from their social, political, and economic environment, despite mechanistic courses given in law schools. Thus, to review the principles of patent law without delving into the interplay of many aspects of our society would be to discuss a theoretical, nonexistent system. This book, therefore, is not addressed solely to engineers and applied scientists; some parts are addressed to lawyers, economists, businessmen, and politicians.

I have found the problem of presenting all facets so that they may be understood by readers of quite varied disciplines to be not without difficulty. For this reason illustrations have been confined to technology that can readily be comprehended by nontechnicians, and legal and economic discussions have been kept sufficiently elementary to be grasped at least in part by the technical reader, but without sacrificing the point intended for the legalist or economist.

Those who expect an engineering “cookbook” approach to this subject will not find it here. Similarly, those who look for a presentation in the form of a Procrustean “case study” will be equally disappointed.

To write an interdisciplinary book requires a mixture of interdisciplinary techniques, and so I have tried to interweave history, primary principles, procedures, problems, and points of conflict into what I believe to be the true fabric pattern of the patent system, struggling to stay alive in a world of rapid change. Because of this somewhat unorthodox approach, I have summarized the scope of each chapter at its head, and, in some cases, the reason for the approach used in order that the reader may better understand my mode or presentation.

Introduction

1 The Origin and Development of The American Patent System
1.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 The Role of the Patent Office and the Courts
2.1The Nature of the Patent Office . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2Patent Office Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3Review of Patent Office Decisions . . . . . . . . . .
2.4The Present Mood of the Courts . . . . . . . . . .
2.5The Reports of Patent Office and Court Decisions
2.6A Further Role of the Courts – Infringement Suits

3 The Patent Law

3.1Classes of Patentable Invention . . . . . . . .
3.2Conditions of Patentability . . . . . . . . . .
3.3Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4The Statutory Test of Invention . . . . . . . .
3.5Obviousness of “Subject Matter as a Whole”
3.6Statutory Presumption of Validity of a Patent
3.7Commentary–Legal Recognition of Inventions

4 Patents in Action (History of the Basic Telephone Patent)
4.1 The Circumstances Underlying Bell’s Invention . . . . . . . .
4.2 Bell’s Basic Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 The Founding of Bell’s Company – and the Pirates . . . . . .
4.4 Enters the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 How Would Our Supreme Court React to Bell’s Patent? . . .

5 TheRights, Obligations, and Problems of Inventors
5.1University and Government Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2Current Governmental Agency Regulations Concerning Patents
5.3Industrial Employment Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4The Problems and Dangers in Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5Professor Cady Was Not Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



7 The Modernization of Patent Systems
109

7.1 Present Proposals for a Common European Patent and Judiciary 110

7.2 Some Different Ideas for Revision of the American Patent System 114


8 Court Modernization for Aiding the Patent System and the
8.1 The Nature of the Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 A Few Measures Already Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3 A Different Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 A Formula for Economic Decline
9.1 The Pity of Serendipity . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2 “Mind-Forged Manacles” . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3 “Conformity Is a Psychotic State” . . . . . . .
9.4 Mental Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5 The Degree Slide Rule Won’t Work This Time
9.6 A New Use for Senior Scientific Statesmen . . .
9.7 Create or Perish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

谢谢楼主！