“He’s a singular genius, all right, but not in the way he appears,” said Jennings with a laugh. “To answer your question, I suspect there are certain traditional ways of finding out things that are wholly wrong in their approach. I believe Dr. Nagle has abandoned these and has devised for himself new methods to find basic knowledge.”
“And you would say, I suppose, that this Committee should recommend amendments to the Patent Laws permitting Dr. Nagle to obtain patents on Laws of Nature?”
"Indeed I would!” said Jennings.
VI.
They came in a stream after that. There were the bitter ones and the bewildered ones, and the senators listened in astonishment as the young researchers talked of the idiocy of legal definitions in scientific matters. Of invention and noninvention. Of combinations, defined by the legal mind. Of novelty and prior art. And the wonderful slip-of-the-wrist definitions of statutory and nonstatutory items. Of the mysterious “flash of genius” so essential to invention.
Some of the younger, less disciplined men poured out the unrestrained bitterness of long hours of research and development judged fruitless from the standpoint of patentability and resultant compensation.
But it wasn’t getting out, Mart observed. The reporters were taking down the words, but the bitterness wasn’t getting out to the minds of those who could vindicate him against the accusations that Baird and his kind had made. It was far easier for the press to quote a Dykstra and his comical, melodramatic interpretation than the sincere frustration of the researchers who were doing all they could to back Mart.
Thursday noon he said to Berk. “We’ve got to get it out where every one can buy it. Even if we win here in this little Committee and finally in Congress, we won’t have touched the problem of minds like Baird’s. That’s the real enemy.”
“What are you going to do?” said Berk.