« Fishy | Main | Uppity »

July 9, 2009

Cool It

In an echo of denouncing "irrational exuberance," the organization best known for harboring practicing pederasts has denounced vigorous patent protection. The dope with the hanging rope is none other than the Pope, who put out the hard word.

"On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care."

Bishops and priests on down the line twittered at the phrase "unduly rigid assertion." The jig is up. Time to rub the excessive off the zeal so as to give the Pope something less to squeal. About. And don't forget to tithe.

Pope Benedict XVI slapped his big Benedict on a letter entitled "On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth," which spills ample ink on "love in truth" as "a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized." The lofty sentiments are ultimately self-serving, and follow the traditional church doctrine of being logical non-sequiturs, because, once past the craven need to fill the spiritual emptiness inside, the whole Catholic house of cards doesn't make much sense.

In Populorum Progressio, Paul VI taught that progress, in its origin and essence, is first and foremost a vocation: "in the design of God, every man is called upon to develop and fulfil himself, for every life is a vocation." This is what gives legitimacy to the Church's involvement in the whole question of development.

The dig on IP is part of more general thrust relating to equality, under the theme "a modern economy respectful of the rights of the weakest." Because poor folk are big suckers for religion.

22. Today the picture of development has many overlapping layers. The actors and the causes in both underdevelopment and development are manifold, the faults and the merits are differentiated. This fact should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways, and it should lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems. As John Paul II has already observed, the demarcation line between rich and poor countries is no longer as clear as it was at the time of Populorum Progressio. The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort of "superdevelopment" of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation. "The scandal of glaring inequalities" continues. Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries, both old and new, as well as in poor ones. Among those who sometimes fail to respect the human rights of workers are large multinational companies as well as local producers. International aid has often been diverted from its proper ends, through irresponsible actions both within the chain of donors and within that of the beneficiaries. Similarly, in the context of immaterial or cultural causes of development and underdevelopment, we find these same patterns of responsibility reproduced. On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder the process of development.

Background from Knowledge Ecology Notes. In an ecclesiastical truth-or-dare, Professor Dennis Crouch put me up to this. Thanks Dennis. Hey, how come your blog entry didn't have a pope photo? Christ, man, show some respect.

Posted by Patent Hawk at July 9, 2009 10:45 AM | The Patent System

Comments

Two competing thoughts:

There is a special place awaiting you Hawk.

Thank God, God has a sense of humor.

Posted by: Noise above Law at July 9, 2009 1:56 PM

In the last article in the series on the IPAdvocate.org website, IPAdvocate claims that USF filed criminal charges against an inventor, Petr Taborsky. I thought only prosecutors could file criminal charges. Hmmm....

Posted by: anon at July 9, 2009 4:25 PM

Noise above Law,

You speak of this God as some kind of being, made in the image of man, and one you claim to have particular insight of its psyche. What a peculiar delusion.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at July 9, 2009 10:57 PM

...or is it the very concept of "God" that you find delusional, Hawk?

I see you continuing the vain (sic) with the reversal of "in the image of".

As to particular insights, while I would think that you pray I am correct in my peculiarity, I do hold open the option that my thoughts nowhere near come close to insight into His psyche (call me old school, but "its" is decidely improper, and I care not for the political correctness of reassigning gender to the Almighty).

Posted by: Noise above Law at July 10, 2009 2:34 AM

Enough of this pope and god nonsense. These things have no place in things scientific.

Posted by: aformeralterboywithabonetopick at July 10, 2009 3:22 AM

The Patent Prospector used to be my home page. Unfortunately, I find this post to be carefully calculated to insult me, a practicing Catholic. Accordingly, I have changed my home page.

Please understand that I have found your blog to be interesting and useful, and at one time, I might have considered investigating the services you offer. However, there are simply too many good IP blogs out there for me to waste my time on ones which are authored by someone (1) with a personal disdain for my religious views, AND (2) without the judgement necessary to refrain from expressing that disdain publicly, in an offensive manner, in an inappropriate forum for such expression. Therefore, I will no longer visit your site.

Note: It is not your viewpoint on religion which offends me, or even your references to condemnable actions by individuals who have exploited and abused Church offices. Indeed, we probably have more common ground on these substantive issues than you may expect. And, after all, I'm sure I have viewpoints that offend you. (Actually, I know that I do based on your post.) My actions aren't due to mere disagreement.

Rather, it is this: Your chosen method of delivery of this viewpoint shows a striking lack of judgement.

Indeed, your comments would be funny in a limited circle of like minded individuals, and I will even say that I would not gainsay you for making the same comments in that limited way. But, choosing to express your divisive view in a public forum which happens to serve as a public portal to your business raises issues of judgement.

I don't challenge your authority or freedom to do what you will in this forum; I merely question the judgement you have shown in how you have exercised that freedom.

Indeed, you may have jeopordized your partner's business and the credibility of Professor Crouch. Perhaps Professor Crouch agrees with you on the substantive issues (as your post seems to imply), I don't know. But even if he does, he has nonetheless gained credibility in my eyes, as he has still shown the judgement (so far) not to post in an offensive way on this topic in his blog.

Posted by: CatholicIPCounsel at July 10, 2009 6:36 AM

CatholicIPCounsel, I happen to know information about some former local big guy in the CC that would make your head spin. Lucky him for retiring and fading away fast.

Science and religion do not mix, and never have!

Posted by: aformeralterboywithabonetopick at July 10, 2009 7:27 AM

"However, there are simply too many good IP blogs out there for me to waste my time on ones which are authored by someone (1) with a personal disdain for my religious views, AND (2) without the judgement necessary to refrain from expressing that disdain publicly, in an offensive manner, in an inappropriate forum for such expression. Therefore, I will no longer visit your site."

I disagree with you that a private blog is an inappropriate forum. Just the same as a private nightclub hosting comedians is the appropriate forum, if there is one, for picking on people based on color, holocaust victim status, etc. etc. You don't hold the club responsible for the piece put on to draw crowds such as an advertisement etc.

"the credibility of Professor Crouch"

Crouch's take on this particular piece of verbiage from pope et al. is beyond reproach.

You need to take your faith a little less seriously, as your cardinals do. I'm reminded of the piece in "religulous" (not all that great of a movie) where they interview a catholic father/cardinal on the subject of the faith.

I note that while I am a person of faith it is not the catholic faith.

Posted by: 6 at July 11, 2009 10:16 AM

6, since when do you think cardinals take it seriously. The money (from the poor and ignorant) and boy sex, yes. Too bad parents from many, many years ago did nothing and buried their head in the sand, like CatholicIPCounsel.

Posted by: aformeralterboywithabonetopick at July 11, 2009 12:12 PM

"6, since when do you think cardinals take it seriously"

I was saying that they DO NOT take it seriously.

Posted by: 6 at July 11, 2009 12:19 PM

6, missed the comma

Posted by: aformeralterboywithabonetopick at July 11, 2009 12:34 PM