PROMOTING PROGRESS:
THE SUPREME COURT'S
DUTY OF CARE

RILEY M. SINDER*
JOHN K. LOPKER**
RONALD A. HEIFETZ***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

INTRODUCTION

I. THE SUPREME COURT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
    PROMOTE PROGRESS: PATENT LAW
     A. Basis for the Court's Duty
     B. Construing the Constitutional Terms
          1. "Inventor"
          2. "Discovery"
          3. "Exclusive Right"
          4. "To Promote Progress"

II. CONSTITUTIONAL TOOLS FOR MANAGING THE NATION'S
     PROBLEM-SOLVING
     A. Self-Limitation of Power
     B. Deciding Who Decides
     C. Governing the Society's Resources for Problem-
          Solving

III. MODEL FOR PROGRESS: THE SUPREME COURT'S EFFECT
      ON PROBLEM-SOLVING
     A. Identifying the Nation's Problem-Solving Structures
          and Processes
          1. Reality: Different Factions, Different Cognitions
          2. Adaptation: "Better" Adaptations Resolve
               Threatening Problems
          3. Facing Reality: Considering Available Evidence
          4. Reality-Testing: Intending, Implementing,
               Monitoring, and Mid-Course Correcting
          5. Indications of Work Avoidance: Rising Urgency,
               Disequilibrium
          6. A Demanding Reality, Incorporation of Reality,
               "Better" Adaptations Incorporate More of Reality
          7. Progress: Better Adaptations Becoming Possible
          8. Learning: Implementing Better Adaptations
          9. Symptomatic Responses: Darkening Clouds Indicate
               But Do Not Necessitate Rain
     B. Basis for Intervention
          1. Authority: Maintaining Equilibrium
          2. Leadership: Mobilizing for Progress
          3. The Parties in a Case Represent Avoided Parts
               of a Problem
          4. Democracy: People Solving Their Own Problems
          5. Constitutional Rights: But What of Responsibility
               for the Exercise of Rights?
          6. Ripening an Issue in the Society
          7. Declaratory Judgment: The Power of Incomplete
               Remedies

IV. ENCOURAGING PROBLEM- SOLVING WITHOUT DICTATING SOLUTIONS:  ALTERNATIVE READINGS OF COURT HISTORY
     A. Lest the State Establish Religion
     B. Avoid Only the "Appearance" of Evil
     C. Make the People Do Their Work

CONCLUSION: THE COURT'S LEGITIMATE ANTI- MAJORITARIAN POWER, PROMOTING PROBLEM- SOLVING IN THE SOCIETY

     *     Riley M. Sinder is a business attorney in Seattle, Washington; Member of the Washington State Bar and State Bar of California; S.B., 1964, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ph.D., 1975, University of California at Los Angeles; J.D., 1994, American University.

     **     John K. Lopker is a business attorney in Los Angeles, California; B.A., 1978, University of California at Los Angeles; J.D., 1987, George Washington University.

     ***     Ronald A. Heifetz is Director of the Leadership Education Project at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; A.B., 1973, Columbia; M.D., 1977, Harvard; M.P.A., 1983, Harvard.

     We particularly acknowledge Alan Silverstein for his creativity and cleverness in pushing this project forward in the early stages. Our ideas derive not only from the formal sources noted in the text but also from the insights and phrases of Sousan Abadian, John Astwood, Corinne Dieterle, Lynn Etheridge, Joe Goodnough, Virginia Thorndike, Judy Keeler, Walter Lowney, Carol McCarthy, Juni Nathani, Joan Singer, Sarah Wolfe Notter, and other rapporteurs on progress. We thank our numerous legal colleagues who displayed the grace of the compassionate scholar to suggest improved arguments for this article, regardless of support or opposition for the conclusions.