Society has a curious attitude towards inventors. Their brilliance over the centuries touches all of our lives in countless ways, yet we mostly take their efforts for granted. Indeed, more often than not in Britain we caricature them as eccentric boffins, like Caractacus Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. This ambivalence is a mistake; to me, they are perhaps the greatest heroes of all.

It is a great shame that so much innovation now seems to stem from nameless teams inside large corporations. The whole idea of technological progress had so much more personality in the era of giants like Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. There are too few such inspirational figures around today to dazzle and excite. Perhaps the solitary ideas of one man (or woman) are not enough to produce real technological progress in the 21st century.

Yet the spirit of independent innovation springs eternal. I recently saw Flash of Genius, a movie based on an article (also now a book) by John Seabrook. It tells the true story of Bob Kearns, the professor who pioneered the intermittent windscreen wiper for cars. He showed it to the Ford Motor Company in 1969, but subsequently entered into interminable litigation with it, almost reminiscent of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Charles Dickens' Bleak House. More than 20 years later, he settled for $10.2m, but only after his legal actions had taken over his life.

Unfortunately, it appears patent infringement and suchlike is a fact of life for inventors. Sir James Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vacuumcleaner, talks in his autobiography Against The Odds - and subsequently - about various lawsuits against both Hoover and Amway. Knowledge of patent law and persistence bordering on the obsessive seem useful attributes if you want to be a successful inventor.

The subject of intellectual property and its protection is a contentious one. Industries like the pharmaceutical trade exist thanks to laws that allow them to enjoy temporary monopolies for original drugs. Vast, long-term research and development expenditure can only be recouped because of this complex system. But some would argue that charging high prices (which often bear no relation to the cost of production) for life-saving treatments is immoral. Certainly, the juicy profits enjoyed by big pharma in the US are part of the reason that healthcare costs there are so high. Yet we are all beneficiaries of their discoveries and formulations. I believe in freedom for enterprise, but I also think entrepreneurs must be allowed to reap the just rewards for their efforts.

Moreover, it is clear that some abuse the patent system to prevent progress. Too many patents are now issued, many of dubious merit - especially in the field of software patents. Patent trolls are those who file "paper patents" or "submarine patents" that they never intend to exploit, but merely use as tools to sue unwitting infringers. Both Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry, and more recently Microsoft have suffered from this type of behaviour, which acts as a harmful toll on endeavour.

Inventors I have met are fundamentally motivated by a desire to see their creations become appreciated and recognised, rather than an urge to accumulate wealth.

Tim Berners-Lee, the man responsible more than any other for the initiation of the world wide web, is a classic example of this attitude. He is a modest academic who has, I am sure, resisted countless overtures to make huge fortunes from the web, in order to carry on his role as one of its custodians.

Some inventors are almost dismissive of accountants and bankers - they say the money men do not understand the way creative minds work. Yet inventors must have a deeply practical streak: they need to think of ways to fabricate new things. They should be a combination of artist and engineer: with the vision to imagine a new device, and the ability to make it come to life.

We need inventors more than ever if we are to improve the world. From a cure to Alzheimer's to better car batteries, there are thousands of urgent problems that need solving. History suggests the magical combination of technology, capitalism and brains is capable of meeting every challenge - despite the doubts of the pessimists.

社会对待发明家的态度很奇怪。几个世纪以来，他们的智慧以无数不同的方式触及我们生活的方方面面，然而，我们却通常把他们的努力看成是理所当然的事情。实际上，在英国，我们往往把他们描绘为古怪的科学家，就像《飞天万能车》(Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)中的卡拉克塔克斯•鲍茨(Caractacus Potts)。这种矛盾的心理是一个错误；在我看来，他们可能是最伟大的英雄。

如今，那么多的创造发明似乎都来自大公司内部的无名团队，这是一种巨大的耻辱。在尼古拉•特斯拉(Nikola Tesla)和托马斯•爱迪生(Thomas Edison)等巨人的时代，技术进步的整体理念带有更多的个性。如今，能够迸发出耀眼光芒并让我们为之激动、给我们灵感的人太少了。或许，一个人（男或女）的独立想法不足以在21世纪创造真正的技术进步。

然而，独立创新精神的跃动是永恒的。最近，我观看了一部影片《灵光乍现》(Flash of Genius)，该片根据约翰•斯布鲁克(John Seabrook)的文章（如今已经成书）改编而成。影片讲述了汽车挡风玻璃间歇式刮水器发明者--鲍勃•卡恩斯(Bob Kearns)教授的真实故事。1969年，他曾把产品介绍给福特汽车公司(Ford Motor Company)，但随后却与该公司打起了旷日持久的官司，与查尔斯•狄更斯(Charles Dickens)《荒凉山庄》(Bleak House)中的詹狄士(Jarndyce)状告詹狄士(Jarndyce)一案有几分类似。20多年后，他以1020万美元与福特公司达成和解，但这场法律诉讼已经夺去了他的人生。

不幸的是，对于发明家而言，专利侵权以及诸如此类的遭遇似乎是无法改变的事实。发明无集尘袋吸尘器的詹姆斯•戴森爵士(Sir James Dyson)在他的自传《超越可能》(Against The Odds)中--以及后来的若干场合--谈到了许多针对胡佛(Hoover)和安利(Amway)的诉讼。如果你想成为一名成功的发明家，对专利法的了解以及近乎于痴迷的执著信念似乎是有益的品质。

知识产权及其保护的话题颇具争议。制药等行业的存在要归功于那些允许它们暂时享有新药专利权的法律。巨额长期研发的支出正因为这种复杂体系才能够获得补偿。但一些人会主张，对那些挽救生命的疗法收取高价（通常与生产成本无关）的做法是不道德的。，美国大型制药公司享受的丰厚利润无疑是美国医疗成本如此高昂的原因之一。然而，我们都是它们的发现和配方的受益者。我相信自由企业制度，但我也认为，必须允许企业家为他们的努力获得合理报酬。

另外，很明显，一些人对专利体系的滥用阻碍了技术进步。如今颁发的专利太多，其中许多专利的价值是可疑的，特别是在软件专利领域。专利怪物(Patent troll)是那些申请"纸面专利"(paper patent)或"潜水艇专利"(submarine patent)的公司，它们从不打算开发这些专利，而只是将其用作起诉不知情侵权者的工具。黑莓(BlackBerry)的制造商Research in Motion以及最近的微软(Microsoft)都曾因此类行为受到影响，这会给人们的努力带来有害影响。

我遇到过的发明家的根本动机是，希望自己的发明得到赏识和认可，而非积累财富的欲望。

万维网(WWW)之父蒂姆•伯纳斯-李(Tim Berners-Lee)就是这种态度的经典例子。他是一位谦虚的学者，我肯定，为了继续担任万维网监管人之一这个角色，他曾拒绝过无数个从万维网赚取巨额财富的建议。

一些发明者几乎对会计和银行家嗤之以鼻，他们说，这些与金钱打交道的人不理解创造性思维的运作方式。然而，发明家必然拥有高度实际的特质：他们需要思考创造新事物的方法。他们应是艺术家和工程师的综合体：他们应具备设想新装置的想象力，也应具备让其变为现实的能力。

如果我们要让世界变得更好，就比任何时候都更需要发明家。从治疗老年痴呆症到生产更高质量的汽车电池，有数以千计的紧迫问题需要解决。历史告诉我们，科技、资本集中和大脑的结合具有不可思议的力量，能够应对所有的挑战，尽管悲观主义者对此表示怀疑。

译者/梁艳裳
关键字:双语阅读
生词表: