Discovery++: Regulated or Opened?

Innovation evolves with motivation or exigency. It is an investment and not philanthropy, well some make such assertions. But whatever,  it plays an important role and keeps the world ticking and progressing.

The legitimacy to prove first is to find that the originality is not a mere discovery or replication but a novel product. That is and how I define invention as  (Discovery+1) or Discovery++, one or many steps ahead of discovery. And how this is regulated and achieved? Through Patents. Kinda intangible assets, granted to an individual but with Restrictions.

However, distinct opinions would always surface, some may be critical by saying that It:

1. creates stifle in the competition;

2. is a commodity to maintain;

3. is an unwanted necessity or onus that has been imposed on them to remain in the market or competition.

4. an expensive affair.

It is true that the process is too long and endeavors should be forged to expedite the same. But it’s unfavorable to question the credibility of it.

Furthermore the rights conferred are not absolute. But there could be averments as at what reasonable cost? Well that should depend upon the Country’s Infrastructure, Per Capita Income, inhibited by how many people with lower incomes etc.. There would always be distinct opinions on Patents. But seems neither Patents are stifle in the competition nor they are onus to the society.

Though in some notable cases the issues were thoroughly debated for prolong as to whether Business Methods, Abstract Theories, Mathematical Calculations etc. are patentable or not. You ask 10 different Experts to interpret this with a substantial conclusion, all would have distinct subjective interpretation specially when it comes to Software.

Simply putting like this from a Layman's perspective:

Why Word a patentable product? Though MS lost the word Patent Appeal later for its Version. But why it is for some and it isn't for some. Supporting it and without unfolding it's ingredients, characteristics and process, when Word was created with the help of existing Keywords of some Programming Language and Dictionary along with the Technology as it made people to possibly modify, alter, append, remove, align, make additions, create several documents & layouts, copies of documents etc. to express the content of their speech and thoughts in hard copy which was not possible for human beings to either remember the exact sequence and flow of the words in their mind chronologically what they wanted to share or send or to transfer to others or to retrieve the same manually, electronically in the form of Documentation. Even if it would have been possible, it would have been too tedious for any human if they would have done it manually. Therefore, it was novel, not a mere discovery or amalgamation or addition to any existing product and should be a patentable product. But these Simple justifications could be Negated by more strong Elementary averments like given herein above in distinct locations and by different people.

OSS!! A good Perspective?? To many, Yes but with some Restrictions!

And further not a bygone case of Natco & Bayer about the generic drug Nexavar and its compulsory licence. Here too conclusions can be drawn from both the angles, from the investment point of view and from the perceptions of the patients who ultimately are the recipients in the end.

And who can forget the neoteric case of Toyota opening it's whopping 5600+ Patents in the open market, as what they claim, for a good hydrogen future. 

But are they Commodities but quite expensive to maintain? Depends upon its valuation and its performance at the commercial scale.

But to maintain a balance between development and fulfilling the needs of the republic, is an arduous venture to achieve anywhere.

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015

Lost in Interpretation!

Was a part of one fleeting discussion where I was just a passive listener, some time back! Somehow the concept of Faith evolved in the Discussion between these two persons. So this genuinely Respectable man with Impeccable Credentials told that accomplishment is achieved by someone 'only' to create a place and stand, up there, else what one would go and tell to his Creator with what other justifications?

As that was really a brief conversation, it just ended in no time.

But I was baffled with this concept! Self: Development; Realization; Empowerment; Establishment; Achievement: that’s all Personal. That’s one’s Personal Aspiration, Ambition and Need, which is perhaps a ‘Necessity’ for Human and Societal Development. And further precisely  restricting the same till Individual level. But how can we dovetail the two distinct aspects, that’s confounding.

Self Development, Personal Aspiration and Faith and Commitment towards, it may be in anything, all reside in segregated Aspects. The first two in the same and the latter in the distinct Horizon.

But then what’s Faith? Truth; Belief; Confidence; Commitment; Compulsion; Coercion; Concept; Illusion? Can we dovetail our Personal Ambitions with Salvation?

But it’s bemusing when the concept of achieving our personal aspirations and ambitions is correlated with the faith. Though the Former is a Necessity for the Human Evolution, but is certainly detached from the Latter.

Or are we really victims of Lost in Translation? We implement the aged Theories with ‘Blanket Affirmation’ without realizing in which Context and under what Circumstances or for whom they were written!

But from one particular angle, Faith or Devotion can be defined as a Belief and I presume affirmatively and confidently which exist from where one can get Confidence while perceiving  or facing ‘some’ unpleasant creations, further which is not an illusionary concept or followed by compulsion. And furthermore, certainly not for fulfilling your personal ambitions just to justify yourselves up there. 

I Presume whoever up there would see how good we were rather how godly we were being considered.

Note: All My Blogs are Subjected to Copyrights

Reflection of an Issue!

If the components of any issue is perceivable, does it require vexation or disgruntled reflection of any guileless idiosyncratic perspective to put efforts to make it cognizable amid any system?

For instance, an opened borewell, perceivable to many, but only becomes actually perceptible when a child or some entity falls into it, as such cases had been observed in the past as well as covered by the Projectors for many days also. Well that's at a trivial level though utterly unfortunate instances. Bigger instances creates the foundation of any Cause.

What precisely profound me is the existence of a belief to acknowledge the resentful agitation first, then the plight or concern which perhaps could have been simply extinguished before any subsequent resentment. The reasons are perceptible but ignorance is adopted. With deliberation, and if emphasis peculiarly is made on the conventional demeanor, is the inherent reaction only to the noises from some disgruntled entities and their resentment further resulting sans transmuting the same into any substantial conclusion. Thence making it impliedly and possibly a reflection of a passive unsparing and unconcerned aspect of the mysterious entity hidden within ourselves. Subsequent illumination and then recognition of the cause or concern shouldn't be a part of any system. And Furthermore if the precipitation of any cause or concern can be perceived, an action for the rectification or any corrective measure should be made first rather waiting for some agitation or resentment as an effect of the same.

Now, could we surmise entities as passive spectators?

Can we conclude this as an unsparing and if more narrowly explained, a sadist attitude which is not reflective but infused within the persona of every entity if seen through a prism? Do we impliedly cherish the grief of any separate unaffiliated discrete individuals, even knowing the cause or predicament but blindly discern it unless the reflection of the effect of the same, that might be desolation of the entity, is perceivable?

This could be more 'Publicly Visible' in the Below Developing and Developing Locations compared to the Developed where it exists in a 'Stealthy' state. May be the fear or insecurity that triggers the reflection of our distinct entity which presides within everyone, forces such deportment at the individual level just to be in coherence amid the system with selfsame structures.  

But if reason or concern is known, rather expecting any agitation or disgruntled opinion or resentment, an efficacious endeavor to resolve the uncertainty or impediment would be more valuable which will form a strong cohesion within the system. Thence, why Ignore any concern when they can be Resolved with manageable and simplistic approach.     

Note: All My Blogs are Subjected to Copyrights.

Historical Aspects!

A Neophyte Questions Substantially. Followers on the behest of whom they Follow are good at Nipping coz that’s their Academy.

Now the Historians’ distinct perspectives, though all true, only conclude into distinct Philosophies with divulged perceptions. Though with the evolving cognition, a trend to question the existence of all perspectives, thus leading us to divulged beliefs and not to any one precisely, which is furthermore impliedly a healthy belief in itself. But to whom more inclination should be given as a matter of fact, forged by transparency, as who should be considered as an impeccable Icon, that’s where the question ensues.

A Learner won’t dissect each and every piece of information unless kindred to the said subject specific domain. A Learner would go through distinct conceptualized Historical Facts concluded by any Historian only waking his ‘preferential’ part of cognition which will then conceive as, on which Fact or Entity he should believe or follow. But that would again be a personal perspective.

Though Historians uses distinct modules and existing historical facts to conclude chronologically the reasons for any cause or action, still their own philosophies and ideologies might play a certain role in surmising or concluding the historical facts into documentation. They might be selective, protective, descriptive,  affirmative, reactive, creative or reflective while comprehending facts. And though many of them come with impeccable backgrounds, their perspectives would differ on the same historical fact though inclusively everything would be true.

But even if their protectiveness or ideological inclination plays a certain role, they should also unfold the true facts even if it ends up unraveling any icon being a beholder of wrong demeanor at any given particular of time. The Learner could then conclude whether that instance was coercion, compulsion, necessity or a mere idiosyncratic temperament.

Furthermore the Projectors also play an important role in Projecting any Entity as how reasonably or in which flair or flavor they project anything. The existing Projectors at any given point of time shouldn't recline and watch the making of the facts but should also project the facts categorically.

Thence, Learners would never go and keep corroborating the Historical facts with other existing antithesis theories unless they are working on any assignment or contemplating them with an interest or are an associates to this specific domain. Whenever and whoever project a Historical Entity as an Icon or unfolding any Historical Fact, the Historians first shedding their Personal Ideological Perspectives, Opinions and Differences, should collectively come to a conclusion which the Learners could understand with deep Thoughts. The only thing is to find not the spotless but the facts with less spots.

Copyright ©  Pranav Chaturvedi 2015