tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post2675765496139415228..comments2024-03-26T13:13:25.033-04:00Comments on Written Description: T.J. Chiang: Levels of AbstractionLisa Larrimore Ouellettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-49938326884788995762011-06-19T13:36:16.925-04:002011-06-19T13:36:16.925-04:00Thanks for your comment, and I'm sorry you fou...Thanks for your comment, and I'm sorry you found the post disappointing. I'm afraid I can't provide a simple answer to the question of what an invention is under Chiang's theory - the whole point of his article is that even though the term "invention" is often used in patent law, our attempts to define "invention" are illusory. I used the example of the Wright brothers only in an attempt to make Chiang's ideas more concrete - I wasn't making any historical claims about their actual patent. For another concrete example (which is perhaps better because it is entirely hypothetical), see the method of curing AIDS on p. 4 of Chiang's article.<br /><br />The goal of this blog is to promote respectful discussion about academic scholarship, and anyone who has constructive comments about Chiang's thesis is welcome to post them here.Lisa Larrimore Ouellettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-83286126134986928512011-06-19T08:35:53.124-04:002011-06-19T08:35:53.124-04:00This is somewhat of a disappointing post because f...This is somewhat of a disappointing post because first it poses an intriguing question, "What is an 'invention'?", never answers it; and then it immediately follows up with a clearly false assertion, namely, that "The Wright brothers received a patent for building one embodiment of an "invention" ("a single glider that could barely fly").<br /><br />No. The Wright brothers received "a" patent because they had filed "a" patent application and because the government decided that the application papers satisfied, at that time, a series of bureaucratic requirements which were understood one way back then in history and which are understood differently in this, our current point of view within the ebbs and flows of history and its attendant progress in science and the useful arts.<br />The post ends as it began by teasing again at the question and never even beginning to fashion an answer: "This article has made me think much more carefully about what "invention" really means."<br />Well then, what are some of your conclusions about what "invention" means? <br /><br />More disappointingly, the post fails to distinguish between "an" invention and "the" invention or between either of the former and the act of "inventing" and the act of commercializing "an" or "the" invention. <br /><br />A better job could have been done.Step Backhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178091823442339760noreply@blogger.com