[A]re Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us?
Damn. Yes. That’s the answer: Control. Power. Without contribution. Control without contribution.
From James Santagata
[I] wish C&C were only used as justifications for those who cannot invent. But it’s actually used as a weapon, as a compliance technique to force a “validation seeking / approval seeking” frame onto those who do create…By accepting this frame, the creator actually gives up his power to those who cannot create. So what is the most societally beneficial manner to critique? How about this one: “Critique by creating.” – Michelangelo
From Karl Brooks
[I]n a scenario where the critic intends destruction of the invention, AND the critic has gained superior standing, so he is able to not only condemn but even to vandalize with impunity: What are the inventor’s options besides attempts at negotiating from weakness against an implacable foe?
1. He can marshal advocates who have equal standing with the critic who are willing to recognize and champion the invention as beneficial to everyone, including the critic.
2. He can marshal advocates from within his (weaker) standing to directly attack the critic.
3. He can capitulate, allowing his invention to be destroyed, perhaps with the hope that many others will miss his invention enough to dethrone the critic.
4. He can capitulate and contribute only inventions that meet with the critic’s approval, adopting a fatalist attitude towards lost benefits.
5. He can capitulate and cease to invent within the critic’s view, operating underground for like minded people.
6. He can cease altogether.
I suggest the first option.
Option 0: he can take a fraud to court for fraud. This reduces transaction costs for prosecution, and increases transaction costs of misrepresentation.