Patents 1AC

DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC

We offer the plan-

Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should, in a relevant test case, re-
establish the TSM test for subject-matter patentability in the area of alternative
energy.

1
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
Observation 1 is Inherency:

Supreme Court Raised the Bar for Obtaining a Patent

Eric Raciti, former attorney for the commissioner of patents in the USPTO’s Office for Legislative and International Affairs Et. Al.
3-13-08, Mondaq.com: < http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58318> United States: Patent Standards And Investment In
Alternative Energy
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International, Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), the most important patent
ruling in years, raised the bar for obtaining patents on new products that rely on new combinations of existing, publicly-known
elements. If the combination results from nothing more than "ordinary innovation" and "does no more than yield predictable
results," the Court reasoned, it is not entitled to the exclusive rights that a patent conveys. "Were it otherwise," Justice Kennedy
wrote for the unanimous Court, "patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts." Because most inventions
combine previously known elements, the Court’s more liberal approach to determining "obviousness" will almost certainly make
U.S. patents harder to obtain and defend in litigation. "Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary
course without real innovation retards progress," Kennedy wrote. He added that such patents (based on only incremental
improvements) were also undesirable because they might deprive earlier innovations of "their value or utility."

Patent Procurement Rates in the Alternative Energy Sector Went Down as a

Result
Eric Raciti, former attorney for the commissioner of patents in the USPTO’s Office for Legislative and International Affairs Et. Al.
3-13-08, Mondaq.com: < http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58318> United States: Patent Standards And Investment In
Alternative Energy
Unfortunately for the emerging alternative energy market, the KSR decision has come at a potentially inopportune time, when
patents and innovation are more prized than ever by investors. There has recently been a boom in the number of green-tech
startups, companies that are developing environmentally friendly technology and products ranging from solar panels to energy-
efficient fluorescent bulbs to bioengineered molecules that excrete biofuel. Venture capital and private equity new investment in clean
technologies grew by 27% to $8.5 billion in 2007, according to the Cleantech Venture Network, a group that monitors venture capital
investments in environmentally friendly technologies. Cleantech expects investment in the sector to reach $8.7 billion by 2009.
However, investors have started to retreat from later-stage investments and returned to early-stage deals, as their familiarity
with the sector and technologies grows and the pipeline of commercialization-ready opportunities dries up. If granted patents are
an indication of innovation in a sector, clean technology breakthroughs are up significantly over the past five years, but down
slightly from 2006. In 2007, a little less than 900 patents were granted. That is compared to 2002, when less than 750 patents were
granted in the sector, and in 2006, when a little more than 900 were granted. These numbers were reported through a new quarterly
cleantech patent tracking service offered by the New York based firm of Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. The Clean Energy
Patent Growth Index (CEPGI) tracks the number of patents granted in solar wind, electric/hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, hydroelectric,
tidal/wave, geothermal, biomass/biofuels, and other renewable energy technologies. A breakdown in the patent procurement
pipeline could lead to a negative impact on investments in alternative energy. Surveys have been conducted to validate the use of
patents as a proxy for innovations (see Cohen, Nelson, Walsh, 2000; Arundel and Kabla, 1998). All these studies have highlighted the
existence of a marked difference among technological sectors. For example, the medical device field has long used patents as a means
for appropriating returns from product and process innovation. In fact, in the medical device field, the Cohen, Nelson, Walsh (2000)
report found that the mean percentage of product innovation for which patents are considered effective is almost 55%. Another reason
why patents have been so useful in the medical device field is that big companies often license or acquire new technologies.
Alternative energy also has the potential to focus on IP transaction work since it is likely that big oil, gas, and chemical companies are
also going to have to license or acquire new technologies.

1AC
Observation 2 is Innovation:
2
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

The Alternative Energy Industry Lacks investors in the United States and this
spills over to other countries
Robert M. Margolis, professor of science: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton and
Daniel M. Kammen, Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley. 8-17-1999
Investments in energy technology research and development (R&D), and in associated human and institutional capacity, are
fundamental to our ability to respond to changing economic and environmental needs. This paper uses data on R&D
investments and patent records to examine the relationship between expenditures on R&D and innovation, with a particular
focus on the energy sector. We observe that R&D spending and patents, both overall and in the energy sector, have been highly
correlated over the past two decades in the US. In addition, we observe that the R&D intensity of the US energy sector is
extremely low when compared to other sectors. We argue that the data illustrates the critical role of public policy, as evidenced
by the impact of recent technology transfer related legislation on the total number and on the ownership of innovations
resulting from federally sponsored R&D. We conclude that there has been a significant and sustained pattern of under-
investment in the US energy sector, and that recent declines in energy R&D exacerbate this situation. Innovation for the US
energy infrastructure is also a significant driver of the international energy economy. Thus, the spillover from US under-
investment detracts from the global capacity to respond to emerging risks such as global warming.

A stagnant energy sector made investors run, and only US support for
innovative renewable technologies can win them back – it’s poised to become a
world-leading industry.

Daniel M. Kammen et al, prof of Energy and Society with Energy Resource Group, Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10,
Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice, 12/01, p. 4 [http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/2001/Herzog-Lipman-Edwards-Kammen-
RenewableEnergy-2001.pdf]
The push to develop renewable and other clean energy technologies is no longer being driven solely by environmental
concerns; these technologies are becoming economically competitive. According to Merrill Lynch’s Robin Batchelor, the
traditional energy sector has lacked appeal to investors in recent years because of heavy regulation, low growth, and a tendency
to be cyclical. The United States’ lack of support for innovative new companies sends a signal that U.S. energy markets are
biased against new entrants. The clean energy industry could, however, become a world-leading industry akin to that of U.S.
semi-conductors and computer systems.

The KSR decision is blocking patents on innovative and new alternative energy
technology.
Eric Raciti, former attorney for the commissioner of patents in the USPTO’s Office for Legislative and International Affairs Et.
Al. 3-13-08, Mondaq.com: < http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=58318> United States: Patent Standards And
Investment In Alternative Energy

While it is unclear what precisely has caused a slowdown in the number of alternative energy patents in the past year, it is very
possible that the effects of the more stringent patentability standards are being felt. Alternative energy often incorporates older
technologies, and thus meaningful advances are perhaps susceptible to being seen as merely "ordinary innovation." Because of
the concerns mentioned above, the IP groundwork for a company hoping to succeed in the alternative energy industry should be
prioritized to a level above the typical, garden-variety filing of a few patent applications. The writing is on the wall. To better
the chances for successfully attracting investment, companies need to view their IP procurement as a global and strategic
undertaking, and not as commodity work.

3
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
The patent system is a driving force for innovation and R&D which was
undermined by the KSR decision.
Brief of Amicus Curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Support of Respondents (PhRMA), 2006,
Westlaw.
PhRMA submits that to show that a combination of prior art references renders a claimed invention obvious, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), a challenger should have to provide evidence of either an express or an implicit motivation, suggestion, or
teaching to combine the teachings of the references in the manner alleged to render the claimed invention as a whole obvious.
Rejecting the requirement that the prior art show a motivation, suggestion, or teaching before finding a patent claim invalid under §
103 will make validity challenges unpredictable. The focus will shift from an objective analysis of what the prior art teaches to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to a subjective analysis by the judicial officer considering the patent of *3 whether the
claimed invention has sufficient merit to warrant a patent. Such an undesirable change in the law will significantly undermine the
confidence of innovators such as PhRMA members in their ability to enforce patents against free-riding infringers who use the
fruits of research and clinical-testing efforts of PhRMA members without incurring the costly expenses associated with developing,
testing, and obtaining approval of new drug products. Hence, PhRMA members have a strong interest in preserving an obviousness
standard that promotes predictability and uniformity in the obviousness analysis, to preserve the patent system as a strong
economic driving force for highly beneficial, yet expensive, research and development efforts.

The global economy is defined by innovation, and the U.S. must remain at the
forefront to ensure economic competitiveness, jobs, and investment. But the
U.S. is falling behind – businesses are pumping money into overseas R&D.
Mark R. Abbott et al, Dean and Professor, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State
University, National Science Board, “Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global
Economy,” 2008, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/nsb0803.pdf.
Innovation is a key to economic competitiveness and the technological breakthroughs that improve our lives. Basic research fuels
technological innovations and is critical in fostering the vitality of the U.S. science and technology enterprise and the growth of
highly-skilled jobs. The scientific and technological advances that have led to our Nation’s remarkable ability to create new industries
and jobs, improve the standard of living for people, and provide sophisticated technology that ensures our national security can be
traced back to the outcomes of basic research. Although industry funds two-thirds of U.S. R&D, the majority of basic research is
conducted by research universities, and the U.S. Government has long recognized the importance of public support for these
institutions. The Federal Government established the basis for the Nation’s land grant institutions through the Morrill Acts in the
second half of the 19th century. During World War II, the wartime success of the partnership between universities and the Federal
Government through the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) led to a proposal – requested by the President – from
the head of OSRD for public funding for research, specifically basic research, in academic institutions and research institutes. Such
funding would encourage the creation of knowledge and employ science and engineering (S&E) for discovery and innovation—and
thereby expand national economic growth, increase employment, and improve the quality of life. This proposal ultimately led to the
creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Through its support of entities that fund basic research, the U.S. Government helps
underwrite our national infrastructure for science and engineering R&D and thereby the global preeminence of the U.S. in S&E
innovation. Over time, the Federal Government support for R&D, and the related important efforts of industry, have grown into a
complex and changing web. Given the impacts on the national innovation infrastructure of changes in investment patterns, it is
imperative that patterns and trends of R&D investments be monitored. Extending beyond U.S. borders, dramatic changes have
occurred that have led to a new global economy operating in ways not envisioned even several decades ago. As with our own Nation,
innovation and its hand maiden, R&D, is driving the global economy, and we are seeing more nations recognize this by creating their
own version of U.S. research institutions and infrastructure. U.S. businesses are taking advantage of the global markets and resources,
and are increasing their support for research and R&D infrastructure outside the U.S. At the same time, industry support for its own
U.S. basic research has been fairly stagnant in this century, and its support to academic basic research in the U.S. has remained at most
flat, and declined in share of support for academic R&D to a level not seen in more than 2 decades.

4
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC

U.S. Economic Recession Would Result in Global Economic Turmoil

BBC News, 5/7/99 “The Economy World Bankers Warning on the U.S. Economy”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/363354.stm

The world's central banks are worried about what would happen if the US economy goes into decline. The Bank for International
Settlements (BIS), which groups together central bank officials from around the world, warns that a collapse of the US economic
boom could bring economic turmoil to the rest of the world. "One great danger to continued global expansion at present is that the US
economy will overheat and that fears of subsequent recession will undermine stock markets, reduce wealth and cut spending," the BIS
says in its annual report. The BIS is worried because consumers and businesses in the United States are accumulating too much debt to
finance the consumer boom, and because the US trade deficit is soaring. Too much debt "If investors became less willing to hold the
rapidly expanding external debt of the United States, a falling dollar might increase nascent inflationary pressures in the United States,
even triggering a hard landing," said BIS Chairman Urban Backstrom, head of the Swedish central bank. His words echoed some of
the fears of the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, which recently said it was considering raising interest rates to cool down the US
economy. The BIS admitted that after a year of global financial turmoil, no one could predict whether stability had now returned to the
world economy. "It would be highly imprudent simply to assume that all will be well," Mr Backstrom told his colleagues.

Economic decline causes a nuclear war

Walter Russell Mead, NPQ’S Board of advisors, New perspectives quarterly, summer 1992, page 30
Hundreds of millions - billions - of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have
embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it
can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South
against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - These countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will
pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

5
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
Global recession will cause ethnic wars, famine, protectionism, destruction of
tech, and environmental destruction.
Bernardo V. Lopez, freelance journalist and frequent author on international issues, 9/10/98, “Global recession phase two:
catastrophic”, BusinessWorld [lexis]
The results will be catastrophic. Certainly, global recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple
for dwindling food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key
flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some Latin American countries,
splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the countryside. Unemployment
worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea, Ethiopia and other
African countries as first candidates. Food riots and the breakdown of law and order are possibilities. Global recession will see the
deferment of globalization, the shrinking of international trade - especially of high-technology commodities such as in the computer,
telecommunications, electronic and automotive industries. There will be a return to basics with food security being a prime concern of
all governments, over industrialization and trade expansions. Protectionism will reemerge and trade liberalization will suffer a big
setback. The WTO-GATT may have to redefine its provisions to adjust to the changing times. Even the World Bank-IMF consortium
will experience continued crisis in dealing with financial hemorrhages. There will not be enough funds to rescue ailing economies. A
few will get a windfall from the disaster with the erratic movement in world prices of basic goods. But the majority, especially the small
and medium enterprises (SMEs), will suffer serious shrinkage. Mega-mergers and acquisitions will rock the corporate landscape.
Capital markets will shrink and credit crisis and spiralling interest rates will spread internationally. And environmental advocacy will be
shelved in the name of survival. Domestic markets will flourish but only on basic commodities. The focus of enterprise will shift into
basic goods in the medium term. Agrarian economies are at an advantage since they are the food producers. Highly industrialized
nations will be more affected by the recession. Technologies will concentrate on servicing domestic markets and the agrarian economy
will be the first to regrow. The setback on research and development and high-end technologies will be compensated in its eventual
focus on agrarian activity. A return to the rural areas will decongest the big cities and the ensuing real estate glut will send prices
tumbling down. Tourism and travel will regress by a decade and airlines worldwide will need rescue. Among the indigenous
communities and agrarian peasantry, many will shift back to prehistoric subsistence economy. But there will be a more crowded upland
situation as lowlanders seek more lands for production. The current crisis for land of indigenous communities will worsen. Land
conflicts will increase with the indigenous communities who have nowhere else to go either being massacred in armed conflicts or
dying of starvation. Backyard gardens will be precious and home-based food production will flourish. As unemployment expands, labor
will shift to self-reliant microenterprises if the little capital available can be sourced. In the past, the US could afford amnesty for
millions of illegal migrants because of its resilient economy. But with unemployment increasing, the US will be forced to clamp down
on a reemerging illegal migration which will increase rapidly. Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may
have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of
stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-wide brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities. Such looting in this
most affluent nation is not impossible. The weapons industry may also grow rapidly because of the ensuing wars. Arms escalation will
have primacy over food production if wars escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse its economy back to
health. This will further induce wars and conflicts which will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US may depend more and
more on the use of force and its superiority to get its ways internationally.

6
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
Time is of the essence – the US has to act now in the field of innovation in
order to maintain economic growth and maintain nat’l security.
Task Force On the Future of American Innovation (collective including Association of American Universities and National
Association of Manufacturers), “The Knowledge Economy: Is America Losing Its Competitive Edge,” 2/16/05

For more than half a century, the United States has led the world in scientific discovery and innovation. It has been a beacon, drawing
the best scientists to its educational institutions, industries and laboratories from around the globe. However, in today’s rapidly
evolving competitive world, the United States can no longer take its supremacy for granted. Nations from Europe to Eastern Asia are
on a fast track to pass the United States in scientific excellence and technological innovation. The Task Force on the Future of
American Innovation has developed a set of benchmarks to assess the international standing of the United States in science and
technology. These benchmarks in education, the science and engineering (S&E) workforce, scientific knowledge, innovation,
investment and high-tech economic output reveal troubling trends across the research and development (R&D) spectrum. The United
States still leads the world in research and discovery, but our advantage is rapidly eroding, and our global competitors may soon
overtake us. Research, education, the technical workforce, scientific discovery, innovation and economic growth are intertwined. To
remain competitive on the global stage, we must ensure that each remains vigorous and healthy. That requires sustained investments
and informed policies. Federal support of science and engineering research in universities and national laboratories has been key to
America’s prosperity for more than half a century. A robust educational system to support and train the best U.S. scientists and
engineers and to attract outstanding students from other nations is essential for producing a world-class workforce and enabling the
R&D enterprise it underpins. But in recent years federal investments in the physical sciences, math and engineering have not kept pace
with the demands of a knowledge economy, declining sharply as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This has placed future
innovation and our economic competitiveness at risk. To help policymakers and others assess U.S. high-tech competitiveness and the
health of the American science and engineering enterprise, we have identified key benchmarks in six essential areas—education, the
workforce, knowledge creation and new ideas, R&D investments, the high-tech economy, and specific high-tech sectors. We conclude
that although the United States still leads the world in research and dis- covery, our advantage is eroding rapidly as other countries
commit significant resources to enhance their own innovative capabilities. It is essential that we act now; otherwise our global
leadership will dwindle, and the talent pool required to support our high-tech economy will evaporate. As a recent report by the
Council on Competitiveness recommends, to help address this situation the federal government should: Increase significantly the
research budgets of agencies that support basic research in the physical sciences and engineering, and complete the commitment to
double the NSF budget. These increases should strive to ensure that the federal commitment of research to all federal agencies totals
one percent of U.S. GDP. This is not just a question of economic progress. Not only do our economy and quality of life depend
critically on a vibrant R&D enterprise, but so too do our national and homeland security. As the Hart- Rudman Commission on
National Security stated in 2001: …[T]he U.S. government has seriously underfunded basic scientific research in recent years… [T]he
inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than
any potential conventional war that we might imagine. American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to
national security. If we do not invest heavily and wisely in rebuilding these two core strengths, America will be incapable of
maintaining its global position long into the 21st century. In the post-9/11 era especially, we should heed this warning.

7
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
Observation 3 is competitiveness:

Lack of policy consistency has crippled US energy leadership – we now trail

Europe and Japan in innovation.

Eric Martinot, Center for Resource Solutions, “RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICIES AND MARKETS IN
THE UNITED STATES,” 2005, p. 24, http://www.resource-solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy-
RE.policies.markets.US.pdf
The history of renewable energy policies and incentives in the United States points to a few clear lessons:
First, policy consistency is essential. US renewable energy policy has suffered from inconsistency as
incentives have been repeatedly enacted for short periods of time and then suspended. This stop-and-go
tendency has seriously hampered the development of markets and industries. As a result, the United
States, once the world leader in renewable energy technologies and generation, now lags behind Europe
and Japan in many respects. The up-and-down movement of the wind industry during 2001-2004 due to
expiration of the production tax credit (PTC) is the best example of how inconsistent policies can affect an
industry. The failure of the company LUZ in the late 1980s to continue developing solar thermal power
stations is another. As Berger wrote in 1997, “federal aid has vacillated….National energy
policy—especially as reflected in the tax code—changes its emphasis too quickly to provide the long-term
stable planning horizon that major new renewable energy investments require. Foreign governments,
meanwhile, give their renewable energy industries more generous and longer-term support than does the
United States, therefore providing a more predictable operating environment, creating stiff competition for
American renewable energy companies….For all these reasons, the public’s long-term interests in swiftly
bringing a renewable energy economy into being are neglected.”

Renewable energy innovation is key to international competitiveness.

Daniel M. Kammen et al, prof of Energy and Society with Energy Resource Group, Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10, Renewable
Energy: A Viable Choice, 12/01 [http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/2001/Herzog-Lipman-Edwards-Kammen-RenewableEnergy-
2001.pdf]
The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which
are related to the energy sector. The United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic systems,
behind Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of
fuel-cell systems. Developing these industries within the United States is vital to the country’s international competitiveness,
commercial strength, and ability to provide for its own energy needs.

8
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
The Global Primacy of the United States Depends on its Ability to innovate and
stay competitive
Adam Segal Foreign Affairs, 17 November 2004,
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster
than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the
country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the
personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so
long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies,
increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel,
Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage
of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising.
Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying,
and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S.
advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in
advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other
types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and
development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts
both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never
be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster
than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at
fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

American primacy is vital to accessing every major impact—the only threat to

world peace is if we allow it to collapse
Thayer, professor of security studies at Missouri State, November 06 (Bradley, The National Interest, “In Defense of Primacy”,
November/December, p. 32-37)

So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the
costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in
newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting
point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil
flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is
reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no
surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be
able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure
than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in
international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue
states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going
home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean
that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In
the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true
of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then
the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies
must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet
of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and
train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore

9
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen Posen: see Poznań, Poland. has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present,
commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far
from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United
States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.
(2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world
where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United
States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the
United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with
America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost
all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War
when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has
this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in
international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in
many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade
Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies
outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the
UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet
effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief
to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United
States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do
not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the
"Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important
of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly
challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States,
including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But
China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the
foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates.
The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that
is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or
Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era
where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized
the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.
Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing
respect for human rights, growing democratization is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think
that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong
and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders
collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the
liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't
know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the
security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for
Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among
many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a
number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India
and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur
where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood,
particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread
democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well
as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align
with the United States and be

10
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
sympathetic to the American worldview. (3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are
governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not
have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve
things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for
advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the
Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why
democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted.
Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is
open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off.
The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical
October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005.
It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in
Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like
Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian
Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of
democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to
create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international
property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this
economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United
States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces
American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the
economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure
military prowess.
Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service
diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India.
Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third
World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy. (4)
As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to
the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not
only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading
source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold
War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de
facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake,
flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in
2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United
States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to
South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help
identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the
communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United
States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost
any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80
percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have
overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000
people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror
in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to
Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about
America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States
than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-

11
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim
world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United
States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are
the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these
global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide
the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and
to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these
responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy
remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.

12
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC

Contention 4 is solvency:

Overturning KSR key to private sector adoption and commercialization – any

uncertainty that accompanies a patent means rejection. (note: bottom section
included in case we can access university spillover)

WARF,WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION et al, as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 11-12,
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Oct. 16, 2006)

As a practical matter, the greater need for the patent incentive lies primarily with universities, other non-profit organizations and
small business. Technology transfer by universities and non-profits depends entirely on the underlying patent position. Given the
fact that most university-generated inventions are embryonic in nature and require a great deal of development and often are well
ahead of their time in a commercial sense, the need for exclusivity in licensing can be critical. Any uncertainty which accompanies
a patent and its scope and validity makes it a candidate for rejection of licensing by the private sector. That, in turn, means that the
likelihood of development to a commercial product or process is much diminished and that the public will be deprived of its
benefits. Moreover, a large segment of university licensing is with small companies and, in fact, the Bayh-Dole Act requires that
preference be given to licensing of small business. 35 U.S.C. § 202 (c)(7)(D). It has been recognized by the National Science
Foundation that small businesses contribute the greatest number of jobs to the U.S. economy and it has been estimated that
university licensing has translated into 260,000 jobs and further, the licensing of inventions from universities, teaching hospitals,
research institutes and patent management firms added approximately $40 billion to the domestic economy.11 The university
sector’s contribution to many facets of the U.S. and global economy, and to the enhancement of the human condition, is reliant
upon a viable, sound and technology-neutral patent system. As such, the question before this Court is vital to the continued
effectiveness of university technology transfer. Any changes that weaken the patent system will ultimately also weaken the ability
of the university sector to transfer the fruits of its research endeavors to benefit and improve the human condition. The university
sector’s contribution to many facets of the U.S. and global economy, and to the enhancement of the human condition, is reliant
upon a viable, sound and technology neutral patent system. As such, the question before this Court is vital to the continued
effectiveness of university technology transfer. Any changes that weaken the patent system will ultimately also weaken the ability
of the university sector to transfer the fruits of its research endeavors to benefit and improve the human condition.

13
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
The incentives created by patents increase innovation but only under the
predictable TSM system.
LAWRENCE S. ROBBINS, JD Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, BRIEF OF ALTITUDE CAPITAL
PARTNERS, EXPANSE NETWORKS, INC., INFLEXION POINT STRATEGY, LLC, INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
CORP., IPOTENTIAL, LLC, OCEAN TOMO, LLC, AND ONSPEC ELECTRONIC INC. AS AMICI CURIAE INSUPPORT OF
RESPONDENTS, 2006
It is the combination of incentives created by the patent system that allows small entities like a number of the undersigned
amici to compete in the contemporary American economy, and to foster further innovation. Without protection for their
intellectual property, smaller firms would be unable to attract financing and survive. The result would be greatly diminished
diversity and therefore less innovation. See, e.g., U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN. OFFICE OF ADVOCACY, FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS 1 (2005), http://www.sba.gov/ advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf (Small businesses “[p]roduce 13 to 14 times more
patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one
percent most cited.”); WENDY H. SCHACHT & JOHN R. THOMAS, PATENT REFORM: INNOVATION ISSUES 10 (Congr. Res.
Serv. July 15, 2005) (describing individuals and small entities as “a significant source of innovative products and services”).
The contributions to the commercial marketplace of such smaller firms depend on those firms’ ability to form contracts based
on their intellectual property rights. Those contributions, moreover, are facilitated by the existence of intermediaries that
specialize in the valuation, licensing or sale, and, when necessary, enforcement of intellectual property rights. The entire
economy thus benefits when the market for intellectual property rights is as liquid and transparent as possible. Each of
the undersigned amici, therefore, is a living illustration of the proper functioning of the patent system. In different ways, each
forms part of a cyclical ecology in which invention is encouraged and commercialization is made possible by the availability of
capital in conjunction with the ready transferability of intellectual property rights. For this system to work, however, patent
validity must be predictable at every stage. Investment in innovation is chilled when patentability is not predictable.
“When decisions are being made [in the board or budget committee room], the gambler’s spirit is low and any minor cold water
on a request for research” – including uncertainty in the patent laws – “is apt to militate against a favorable research decision.”3
Similarly, without predictability, investors will be less likely to back independent innovators at both the pre-application
and postapplication stages. See Br. of IBM Corp. in Support of Neither Party 4 (without clarity and predictability respecting
patentability, “the public cannot discern the scope of the patent until after all infringement litigation has concluded and will not
invest in innovative products that might potentially fall within the patent’s scope”). Licensing transactions will become less
efficient because the parties will have poor information about the value of the right being bargained for.4 In short, without
predictability as to validity and patentability, innovation would suffer. The only winners would be a small subset of
corporations – including the computer industry players supporting petitioner here – that do not depend on the patent system
because they are so dominant.

There is no evidence that the TSM standard leads to bad patents.

LAWRENCE S. ROBBINS, JD Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, BRIEF OF ALTITUDE CAPITAL
PARTNERS, EXPANSE NETWORKS, INC., INFLEXION POINT STRATEGY, LLC, INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
CORP., IPOTENTIAL, LLC, OCEAN TOMO, LLC, AND ONSPEC ELECTRONIC INC. AS AMICI CURIAE INSUPPORT OF
RESPONDENTS, 2006
Amici’s basic complaint is that the Federal Circuit’s standard results in patents of poor quality. But amici have
presented no evidence that the motivation-to-combine standard is responsible for rampant issuance or validation of so-
called “bad patents.” Two or three cherry-picked examples are not evidence that a system is broken. One need not agree with
every last application of the Federal Circuit’s standard to conclude that the standard itself is basically sound. It is, however,
worth noting that none of petitioner’s and its amici’s examples shows that the motivation-to-combine inquiry is
responsible for poor patent quality.

14
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
The TSM test injects objectivity and predictability into the subjective question
of obviousness
Q. TODD DICKINSON V.P. and Chief IP Counsel General Electric Co, et al. 2006, BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE 3M CO.,
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., AND JOHNSON &
JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
Amici strongly support the Federal Circuit’s existing “motivation, suggestion, or teaching” test as the exclusive standard for
determining whether or not a combination or modification of the prior art may be made to render a claimed invention obvious.
Since the inception of the Federal Circuit, this test has come to offer an objective evidentiary standard on which patentees and
the public have come to rely. The Federal Circuit’s test provides an objective evidentiary framework for patent applicants and
patent examiners to use to assess the patentability of claimed subject matter during prosecution in the Patent & Trademark
Office. Likewise, patentees and defendants in litigation involving issued patents have a clear understanding of the evidence
needed to support an obviousness defense, and judges and juries have a framework against which they can measure the patent
challenger’s obviousness evidence. As such, the Federal Circuit’s test lends objectivity and predictability to the inherently
subjective question of what would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made.

Criticism that the TSM test is too rigid is not based on the facts.
Q. TODD DICKINSON V.P. and Chief IP Counsel General Electric Co, et al. 2006, BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE 3M CO.,
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., AND JOHNSON &
JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
KSR and its amici criticize the Federal Circuit’s “motivation, suggestion, or teaching” standard for being too “rigid”
and too demanding because it allegedly requires the identification of an explicit teaching in a prior art reference. E.g.
Pet. Br. at 32-43; Amici Br. for Time-Warner et al., at 9-17. In doing so, they attack the proverbial straw-man, knocking
down a standard that does not exist. To the contrary, the motivation to combine does not need to be explicit or even
written. As the Federal Circuit explained on numerous occasions, “[a] suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine
the relevant prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as ‘the teaching, motivation, or
suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references.’” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In fact, evidence for the
requisite motivation, suggestion, or teaching “may flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

15
Patents 1AC
DDI 2008
Berthiaume/Quinn MA

1AC
Observation 5: Pre-empts

Patents are incentives for innovation in two distinct ways: The availability of patents in
itself is an incentive as is the post filing monopoly.
LAWRENCE S. ROBBINS, JD Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, BRIEF OF ALTITUDE CAPITAL
PARTNERS, EXPANSE NETWORKS, INC., INFLEXION POINT STRATEGY, LLC, INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
CORP., IPOTENTIAL, LLC, OCEAN TOMO, LLC, AND ONSPEC ELECTRONIC INC. AS AMICI CURIAE INSUPPORT OF
RESPONDENTS, 2006
Patent systems – U.S. and foreign – promote innovation by creating a set of inter-related incentives. This Court’s
cases emphasize how the patent system creates incentives to invent and to disclose inventions to the world. E.g., Eldred v.
Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 216 (2003); Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150-151 (1989). These pre-
patent incentives are very real and are illustrated by entities like pharmaceutical companies, professional inventors (such as
the founder of amicus Expanse Networks), and research-and-development companies (such as amicus OnSpec Electronic). This
Court has occasionally mentioned a related but distinct – and, in this case, equally important – set of incentives. See Festo
Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 730-731 (2002) (patent “clarity is essential to promote
progress, because it enables efficient investment in innovation”). After the patent has issued – or in expectation of its issuance
– the rights it confers make it possible to attract investment for the purpose of commercializing the invention claimed by
the patent. It is always risky to bring something new to market, and it is the promise of the limited monopoly conferred
by the patent grant – the assurance that the fruits of the investment will not be appropriated by anyone who figures out
how to copy the product – that makes the investment attractive. See, e.g., Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis
V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407 (2004) (“The opportunity to charge monopoly prices – at least for a short period – is what
attracts ‘business acumen’ in the first place; it induces risk taking that produces innovation and economic growth.”). As Judge
Jerome Frank once summed up, referring to a type of competition that is vital to the health of the economy: “The David Co. v.
Goliath, Inc. kind of competition is dependent on investment in David Co. – the small new competitor. And few men will invest
in such a competitor unless they think it has a potential patent monopoly as a slingshot.” Picard v. United Aircraft Corp., 128
F.2d 632, 643 (2d Cir. 1942) (concurring opinion).2

Institutional approaches are the only way to avoid the collapse of all movements and effectively challenge
the flawed state policies.
Grossberg, 92 (Lawrence, Morris Davis Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
“We Gotta Get Out of this Place: Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture”, page 388-389)
The demand for moral and ideological purity often results in the rejection of any hierarchy or organization. The question-can the
master's tools be used to tear down the master's house?-ignores both the contingency of the relation between such tools and the
master's power and, even more importantly, the fact that there may be no other tools available. Institutionalization is seen as a
repressive impurity within the body politic rather than as a strategic and tactical, even empowering, necessity. It sometimes seems as if
every progressive organization is condemned to recapitulate the same arguments and crisis, often leading to their collapse. 54 For
example, Minkowitz has described a crisis in Act Up over the need for efficiency and organization, professionalization and even
hierarchy,55 as if these inherently contradicted its commitment to democracy. This is particularly unfortunate since Act Up, whatever
its limitations, has proven itself an effective and imaginative political strategist. The problems are obviously magnified with success,
as membership, finances and activities grow. This refusal of efficient operation and the moment of organization is intimately
connected with the Left's appropriation and privileging of the local (as the site of democracy and resistance). This is yet another reason
why structures of alliance are inadequate, since they often assume that an effective movement can be organized and sustained without
such structuring. The Left needs to recognize the necessity of institutionalization and of systems of hierarchy, without falling back into
its own authoritarianism. It needs to find reasonably democratic structures of institutionalization, even if they are impure and
compromised.

16