دانش ضمنی در برنامه های ثبت اختراع : مشاهدات ارزش مدل های اولیه تمرین دفتر ثبت اختراع ایالات متحده و پیامدهای بالقوه برای قرن 21

Scientist-philosopher Michael Polanyi has observed that tacit knowledge––knowledge that we know but cannot tell––is an essential part of scientific genius and the ability to innovate. He also observes that physical embodiments, particularly in combination with other means of communicating, provide one important means for transmitting tacit knowledge about an invention. Early in the history of the US Patent Office, a patent application to that Office reflected the need to capture unarticulated aspects of an invention: the application included models as well as text and diagrams. Used in disputes about the content and nature of an invention, models were a vital means for communicating about inventions to the public. This article considers the historical relationship among the various types of “texts”––drawings, texts, and models––that were once required for patent applications. It describes Patent Office arguments for and against eliminating models as evidence of invention, and concludes by raising questions about the potential value of computer models to contemporary patent activity.

Scientist-turned-philosopher-of-science Michael Polanyi has observed that “we know more than we can tell” [26]. Polanyi asserted tacit knowledge––knowledge that is understood but cannot be expressed––is fundamental to scientific innovation, from the origin of an idea to its practical implementation. The researcher's capacity to know what is new Polanyi calls “the tacit power of scientific and artistic genius” [26]. It is the very newness of the knowledge that challenges the originator's ability to capture and express it. As Polanyi puts it, “All descriptive sciences study…physiognomies that cannot be fully described in words, nor even pictures” [26]. Furthermore, whenever we try to convey a new idea to others, we rely on the “intelligent cooperation for catching the meaning” of those we wish to reach [26]. If we accept these observations, we can immediately apprehend the difficulties inherent in both developing and interpreting patents and appreciate the value of communicative forms and practices for conveying tacit knowledge.