Motivation For Success: The 7 Deadly Sins Patent Style

This is an article that I have been wanting to write since at least June 2009, and on a snowy and cold day in Northern Virginia, where folks are snow bound due to closed roads caused by high drifts, what better day to write about the 7 deadly sins, right? OK, there is really no connection to snow and the 7 deadly sins, at least in so far as I can tell, but as I search for a topic to write about I came upon this note to myself, which simply says “7 deadly sins relate to motives.” It was in Houston in June 2009 that this revelation (pun intended) came as a result of dinner and a few drinks with John White. John and I were on the road to teach the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and enjoying an Italian dinner with some red wine. As we often do, our conversation ranged from politics, to law, to patents, to innovation and beyond. Somewhere along the way we started talking about software and the anti-patent crowd, and then the conversation got really interesting.

Our mutual back-slapping rant turned to the profound (at least as far as I was concerned) when we started observing that while it would be a great world if people contributed for the sake of contributing, the reality is that advancement and the prospects of a better life are what push people to succeed, particularly in the innovation space where the odds can sometimes be long. After all, how else could you justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try and make billions of dollars? Striving for something is what makes individuals and businesses not happy with whatever they have. If you have thousands you want hundreds of thousands. If you have hundreds of thousands you want millions, if you have millions you want billions. What makes the business world go ’round, including the innovation and tech space, are the 7 deadly sins, or at least 6 of them.

As many will undoubtedly know, the 7 deadly sins are lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, greed, anger and pride. In business, these “deadly sins” are not a negative, at least when moderated or channeled constructively, and I dare say that anyone successful in the business world relies on a number of these so-called deadly sins, either consciously or subconsciously, to motivate themselves to achieve more. So, with no further ado, I shall visit these deadly sins and elaborate.

Lust

According to Dictionary.com, one definition of lust is “a passionate or overmastering desire or craving” Certainly this term has a sexual connotation, but this definition generally speaking probably best captures the general meaning of the term as it can be used to encompass multiple diverse meanings. Like so many of the 7 deadly sins, if you do not have a requisite amount of lust you are simply not going to succeed in business, and perhaps not in life either. For example, professionals, whether lawyers, doctors or individuals with an MBA or PhD, have denied themselves for many years while in school and then again while putting in the necessary “grunt” work early on in their professions. By and large, when others were out partying and making merry choices were made to stay the course. Sure it would have been fun to go out drinking, stay up late, leave the office early, but desire to succeed took control over instant gratification. The same can be said for those in business. What makes someone start their own business and want to work 14, 16, 18 or more hours a day? Without passion and an overmastering desire businesses would not be started, inventors would not invent and professionals wouldn’t stay in school long enough to acquire necessary skills.

Envy

According to Dictionary.com, one definition of envy is “a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another’s advantages, success, possessions.” While this perhaps should not be a motivating factor, who among us can really say that we have never been motivated by envy? Perhaps not envy in the traditional sense, but have you ever wondered how or why you work so hard and someone you know who maybe works just as hard, or maybe less, is doing better than you? I suspect if we are honest with ourselves most would admit that, at least privately to themselves. So envy isn’t always bad, and can cause one to engage in self reflection, re-evaluation and cause positive life changes moving forward. Of course, envy, is not always constructive, but when someone is motivated to start their own business instead of playing it safe and collecting a pay check, envy can be an important motivating force. While working for yourself comes with a number of challenges, if you need to take off in the middle of the day, or want to just spend time with family or go to a day game at the ballpark, you have a lot more freedom to do that. Of course, you will likely need to work longer and harder to make up for it, but you have that ability.

On another, perhaps unrelated level, envy is central to innovation. For years, perhaps throughout all modern times, those who sell gadgets, whatever the gadget of the day, rely upon envy as a marketing tool. When Apple comes out with their latest and greatest whatever it is, whether an iPod, iPhone, iMac or iPad (although I hate that name) the best sales force are happy customers who make their friends and family jealous. In the innovation space stoking the fire of keeping up with friends and family, or at least enjoy the pleasantries they have for yourself, is what continually works to push the envelope of innovation forward. Of course, patents that act as roadblocks to copycats, forcing copycats to seek paradigm shifting advancement that would not infringe, also pushes the envelope of innovation forward, but I digress.

Gluttony and Greed

According to Dictionary.com the definition of gluttony is “excessive eating and drinking.” While one can really only excessively eat and drink if they have the required funds to do so, allow me to take a slight liberty here and focus on the “excess” part of the definition. In so doing this then spills over into greed.  Dictionary.com defines greed as “excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.” The constant and overriding need for more is what drives successful people to continue to move forward. In many of my articles addressing the anti-patent crowd I enthusiastically proclaim, as did Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street, “greed is good!”

We all remember the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, who was the principal character in Charles Dickens’ 1843 novel, A Christmas Carol. He was greedy to excess, at least until the very end. Greed to excess and for no particular reason or benefit is not something to be admired, but it is impossible to recognize that in the innovation world without greed there would be far fewer innovations, particularly those innovations that we desire the most, such as life saving technologies and drugs. Why would millionaires form and/or invest in an upstart biotechnology company investigating potential cures for cancer? Why would a pharmaceutical company spend between $500 million and $1 billion to bring a drug to market that might, and likely will, flop? The answer as far as I can tell is straight out greed.

Begrudging the success of greedy millionaires and billionaires is, insofar as I can tell, recklessly stupid. I have had conversations with anti-patent people who tend toward the socialist viewpoint where I have been told that if the minute a life saving drug exists it is not available to everyone in the world for free or at whatever cost they can afford it is immoral. Some have even said that they would rather not have any life saving drugs for anyone if it means that a single person is denied the drug. That is just stupid, and it ignores the fact that pharmaceuticals enjoy about 10 years of exclusivity before they are available for practically nothing in generic forms. After the patent expires the drugs cost very little and from that point forward billions of people can benefit, which will happen if and only if there is a limited window of exclusivity.

Greed is a funny thing. Those who want everything right now for free are clearly greedy, and that greed does no good whatsoever, just like the greed of Ebenezer Scrooge. On the other hand, the greed of the so-called “fat cats” certainly puts money in their pocket but also leaves for generations to come life saving drugs. Greed is not a bad thing at all in the patent and innovation world and to acquire more of the innovations we say we want we need to play upon the “greed gene” that resides in all successful people. To do this we should consider doing away with the one-size-fits-all patent term and encourage more of what we want with longer patent terms and perhaps shorten patent terms elsewhere in situations were 20 years makes no technological sense.

Sloth

According to Dictionary.com the definition of sloth is “habitual disinclination to exertion; indolence; laziness.” At first glance this may seem to be a trait that is not helpful in business, and perhaps that is true. Sloth, however, is a trait that is extremely helpful for an inventor to have, at least in appropriate moderation. Creative people, such as inventors, who are disinclined to exertion are always looking for faster, easier and less complicated ways to accomplish a task, and that searching for the easy way out leads to many wonderful inventions. For example, can anyone remember life without a microwave oven? How about life without a washing machine and dryer? These are but two examples of time saving inventions that make things easier. Making everyday tasks easier is an almost sure way to success as an inventor, unless of course the solution is more complicated than the task it seeks to replace. Convenience sells, motivates the buying public and motivates a great many successful inventors.

Anger

According to Dictionary.com one definition for anger is “a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong.” I am not advocating anger, but the reality is in business, including the business of innovation, there are a great many competitions going on at any given time. For virtually every big ticket desired solution there are many chasing the solution. In the patent world, unlike the copyright world, there will be only one winner. We do not give the same patent rights to multiple people, but rather to one winner. In the copyright world, where group hugging runs supreme, we reward independent creation and share and share alike. We also have to live with fair use rights, including copying that is transformative. In the patent world there is a single patent right, which is given to a single innovator, period! Business is difficult, inventors and scientists move from company to company, and in the chase to be that one winner there are hard feelings, betrayals and wrongs that deserve to be redressed.

The anti-patent crowd always talks about how a patent given to only one innovator blocks others and ends the march of innovation. The truth is it ends the march of copying, and can end a particular individual or business from marching forward if they become lazy or satisfied with second place, which in the patent world might as well be last place. Channeling displeasure and frustration and redirecting it to advancement of the core technology or discovering a paradigm shifting technology is what turns the second (or last) place finisher into a victor in the next round.

The truth is the business of innovation is like a boxing match that never ends. Just because you lose a round doesn’t mean you should give up, and if you do the likelihood that you would have succeeded ultimately is not very high. Determination and persistence are rewarded in business and in innovation, and a health amount of displeasure that drives you forward and forces you not to be content is essential.

Pride

According to Dictionary.com, one definition of pride is “a high or inordinate opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority…” If you ask me, that is really a bad definition, and probably a better definition of arrogance. In fact, most of the definitions of pride seem to miss the mark, although this one is, in my opinion, the most accurate definition: “the state or feeling of being proud.”

Since when did pride become evil or bad? If you do not take pride in your work what sense does it make to produce the work in the first place? If you are not proud to have your name associated with your work product then how can you look yourself in the mirror at the start of every new day? Unjustified pride is not helpful, but being proud is hardly negative. If you work hard and can be proud of what you have accomplished you obviously care. It also means you strive for success and excellence. In fact, the truth is that the lack of pride is often what drives people to succeed.

Conclusion

If you ask me, the 7 deadly sins are not very deadly at all.  Like pretty much everything in life, excess is bad and moderation is just fine.  The 7 deadly sins in moderation and channeled properly are what leads successful people in the innovation space to be successful.  That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

5 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Gena777]
    Gena777
    February 15, 2010 03:05 am

    I’d agree that, in moderation, the deadly sins can be quite beneficial, and you often see them in successful people — not just in patent law, but in general.
    http://www.GeneralPatent.com

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    February 12, 2010 11:47 am

    Step & Mike-

    The interesting thing about the AL crowd is that they are not really anarchists at all. Quite to the contrary. I think Step accurately boiled the position down to “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” In order to pull that off what is necessary is an extraordinarily powerful government. So it is probably best to acknowledge that they are not anarchists, and they are not Libertarians. They seem to want anarchistic upheaval with the resulting state devolving into the set of rules that favors their point of view to the exclusion of others. So thought about it in another way, they are not at all adverse to “exclusion” just so long as what is excluded is everything they disagree with. It is that kind of enlightened “tolerance” that characterizes so many fringe groups these days.

    I would agree that the 7 deadly sins are arbitrary, and in fact if you go to Wikipedia there are more than 7 listed. Control does certainly explain most of human interaction from the earliest stages forward.

    -Gene

  • [Avatar for Mike]
    Mike
    February 12, 2010 09:03 am

    I know there are members of the ‘software can’t be patented’ crowd feel that everything software is something they want to use and CONTROL, regardless of who developed it or how much they paid.

    I think there is another, more moderate pool of anti-patent software people who feel that the current patents are either worded to be overly broad or are anticipated/obvious with existing technology (in my mind overly broad is usually obvious).

    The extremist AL’s will never be happy, but the moderate group would be happier if claims in software patents were limited to the ‘proper’ scope. As patent practitioners we need to ensure that issued claims are comparable in scope to the invention or risk enablement and/or anticipation-obviousness. We are motivated by the ‘seven deadly sins’ to get the broadest scope for our inventors, yet moderation is key. Working with inventors to get proper scope is essential instead of being greedy and trying to get the broadest claim ever. We should review the claims we are prosecuting and make sure they are grounded in patentable subject matter. Bilski emphasizes this because some of the claims read on such a wide range of transactions that it is impossible to tell if there is prior art out there. That and the fact that finding unpublished business methods is difficult.

  • [Avatar for step back]
    step back
    February 12, 2010 06:03 am

    Gene,

    The enumerated 7 are just an arbitrarily made up list –a false choice menu if you’re into identifying rhetorical techniques.

    But let’s talk about another human desire:

    CONTROL

    From the moment they are born, people want to begin to control the environment around them and the people around them so that it/they comports with the control freak’s desires.

    Indeed “property rights” are all about CONTROL. If you “own” some form of property then theoretically you have some exclusionary right over that property. In other words, you have the right to exclude others from enjoying that property as and when you choose. Or, if you the owner so chooses, you can let others enjoy your property freely. (Example: Yes you may go fishing in my lake and I won’t charge you a penny for it.) The power is in the hands of the owner.

    There is a group of people out there –and I won’t mince words– who are admitted anarcho-Libertarians or who are closet AL’s. They believe there should be no government and no superseding CONTROL over their selfish and personal desire to CONTROL everything as whim dictates to them personally at the moment.

    If you chemically purify their position, it boils down to this: What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine. That’s the ultimate of a childish CONTROL fetish. Of course, they don’t see it that way. Then again, they don’t see past their own selfish and impulsive desires on almost any issue.

  • [Avatar for Debt Relief]
    Debt Relief
    February 11, 2010 06:03 pm

    Thank you, Mr. Quinn for this posting. Very timely. I do agree that moderation in life is key.