The American Spectator : 'The Invention of Lying'

Text Size

'The Invention of Lying'

By James Bowman on 10.12.09 @ 6:02AM

Ricky Gervais may be the funniest man alive -- though count on Hollywood not to put him to best use.

Ricky Gervais may be the funniest man alive, and he got that way by looking more deeply into the mind and soul of the man we so cruelly call the "loser" than anyone in movies or television has done to date. His character, David Brent, in the original, British version of "The Office," is a comic creation for the ages -- one whose towering stature can be measured against the scaled-down, American version of him played by Steve Carell. American network TV couldn't bear that unflinching gaze into the abyss of loserdom that David Brent represented. As with so many other things, we had to sentimentalize and trivialize him. Now, to judge from Mr. Gervais's new film, The Invention of Lying, he has had to pay the price of working in the American film industry by pre-emptively sentimentalizing another loser who might otherwise have stood comparison with David Brent. He could also have added an unexpectedly theological dimension to the whole concept of the loser -- Jesus Christ, he reminds us, was one of life's losers -- but he chooses instead to use religion only for laughs.

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with laughs, and The Invention of Lying is filled with them. Its "high concept" is of a world in every respect exactly like our own except that, like Swift's Houyhnhnms, the inhabitants are incapable of lying. Like the Houyhnhnms too, they haven't even got a word for "lie," "liar," or "lying" -- though the Houyhnhnms invented the circumlocutory "say the thing that is not" when provoked to it by Gulliver. Mr. Gervais plays Mark Bellison, this world's Gulliver. Mark is a screenwriter for Lecture Pictures -- all movies are filmed lectures of "stories from history" given by a po-faced Christopher Guest, since they also have no concept of fiction -- who suddenly and inexplicably discovers the lie and its usefulness when nobody else in the world has done so. Like Gulliver, too, he struggles to explain to others what lying is and has recourse to a similar formula, telling his friends that he has "said something that wasn't." They are even less successful than the Houyhnhnms in getting their minds around the concept.

But the real story the film tells is not of the invention of lying, which happens in an instant and remains unexplained, but the invention of love in a world of Houyhnhnm-like rationalists -- and, of course, of love's relationship to lying. As a loser, Mark is in love with Anna (Jennifer Garner), a woman who, as everyone tells him -- since there is no such thing as the white lie or diplomatic discretion -- is "way out of your league." She tells him herself. Though she likes him, he is a loser and unattractive: fat and with a snub nose. Surely, he must be able to see that his genetic make-up is no match for hers? She doesn't want little fat kids with snub noses. Anyone who has ever seen a movie could write the rest of the script, minus the jokes, from there on out, which is not necessarily a disqualification from movie quality but is something of a burden for the script to carry.

That it succeeds in carrying it to the extent it does has to do with the fact that The Invention of Lying is also a philosophical movie. The underlying thinking behind it is that the world is a miserable place which only lying can make bearable. Do you begin to see where religion is going to come into the story? Hence, too, the connection between love and lying, which reflects a similar connection between the cold-blooded rationalism of everyone but Mark and their merciless and unfeeling truthfulness. To accept the challenge of showing how small a leavening of falsehood is required to make love grow and for life in general to become bearable takes a considerable artistic ambition, and to succeed, even to the limited extent that this movie does, is therefore no mean feat. But how much better it might have been if the concept of falsehood itself could have been examined for ambiguities and uncertainties! Do we always perfectly know what is true and what is false? It's easier to assume that we do.

Structurally, there are three pivotal moments in the movie. The first is the actual invention of lying when, after loser Mark is fired from his job and evicted from his apartment, he goes to the bank to withdraw what little money he has left. The rent is $800 and he has a balance of only $300. But the bank's computer system is down, so the teller asks Mark how much he wants to withdraw. To the accompaniment of a screen-graphic suggesting the revolutionary nature of the mental moment, he suddenly decides to ask for the $800 he needs to avoid eviction. Just then, the computers come back up. "Oh," says the teller, "it says here you only have a balance of $300" -- whereupon she apologizes for the bank's mistake and hands him the $800.

There follow a number of comic vignettes in which Mark tries out his new and unheard-of skill with hilarious effects. They also work a dramatic change in his fortunes, turning him from a loser into a fabulously wealthy screenwriter. But Anna still spurns his romantic advances on the grounds that it is not reasonable for her to want little fat kids with snub noses. Besides, now she is being romanced by Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe), Mark's much better-looking colleague at Lecture Pictures. Things then take a more serious turn as Mark's mother (Fionnula Flanagan) is taken from "A Sad Place for Hopeless Old People" where she lives to the hospital where there is, naturally, no pretense that she is not about to die. When she confesses her fears of "an eternity of nothingness," Mark reassures her with a story about the happy land of love and reunion and eternal mansions that lies before her.

She dies happy, but suddenly everyone else is curious about the afterlife that no one had known about before but that now everyone accepts without question. "What else happens? Can you tell us more, please?" Mark is forced to come up with a whole invented narrative of "the Man in the Sky" who speaks to him alone and who tells him of the world to come and what you have to do to get into the good place and to avoid the bad place. Don't do bad things, basically. You get three chances before you're sent to the bad place, says Mark. "Like baseball!" say the people. And: "We have to hear everything that's bad." Mark seems to agree, but we don't hear him getting any further than rape and murder. He doesn't mention theft, for instance, which we know him to be guilty of. But then it's all a lie to him anyway.

The third pivotal moment comes when Mark refuses to use his unique power to lie in order to win the love of Anna. Has he, perhaps, come to believe his own lies about the eternal consequences of doing bad things? It would have made for a better movie, I think, if he had, but no, he confesses to Anna that there is no Man in the Sky. She takes it remarkably well, considering how fascinated she, along with everybody else in the world, has been with his tales of the afterlife. Like everybody else in the world, too, apart from Mark, she doesn't really understand how it's possible for him to have said something that isn't. In a way, Mr. Gervais's fantasy is a subtler version of Zombieland, in which the heroes' remarkable powers are only those of ordinary humanity but magnified by the absence of any other ordinary human beings.

The Invention of Lying has been criticized in some quarters for being anti-religious, but it is so only in the most literal sense. The dramatic impetus of the mise en scène is pro-religious -- since the big lie has only benign effects -- just as it is pro-love and pro-family, and Ricky Gervais's denial of the gravamen of his own creation by insisting that it is a lie seems curiously weightless and insignificant, a way of backing out of the complexities he himself has established without damage to the Hollywood imperative to keep it light and funny and to wrap up the rom-com plot in well under two hours. It's a pity he didn't have more of a belief in Ricky Gervais. God could have been left to take care of himself.

About the Author

James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment

Trurl| 10.12.09 @ 10:50AM

It seems that for something like the bank episode to work the people of this universe must not only be unaware of the concept of lying but they must be infallible as well, or believe themselves to be. It never occurs to the teller that people may say things that are untrue by sheer accident, believing that they are true. How nice to live amongst such sheer perfection. Maybe Mark really is the snake in the Garden as far as this film's conceit goes.

Alan Brooks| 10.12.09 @ 6:08PM

Hurts too much to laugh--
the jokes are on us.

parcar| 10.13.09 @ 6:37PM

I agree - not only does this movie assume that no-one can make a mistake (although apparently bank computers can), it also assumes that being unable to lie also means being unable to hold one's tongue when prudent. And it doesn't even manage to be consistent with these two things. I was all set to love this movie, but this kind of sloppiness drives me crazy, particularly from someone whose work is usually so tight and clever.

Chowder| 10.14.09 @ 5:13AM

C'mon, man, it's just a comedy. While I disagree with your assertion that the inability to lie is somehow independent of the ability (or inability) to remain polite (or quiet) in certain situations, it is a the very bottom of it a fantasy concept that can't truly be rationalized. You can't really argue that the premise is sloppy, because all of your complaints are based on YOUR personal interpretation of the concept.

I mean, did you laugh at Liar Liar, or was Tom Shadyac's interpretation of God endowing a man with all of His powers "not realistic enough" for you?

Some people. Sheesh.

Rich| 10.17.09 @ 2:16PM

Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty are 2 different films :) Agree with you in principal though!

alex| 11.7.09 @ 4:22AM

someone had the same gripe as you as far as the being prudent & biting your tongue thing. she also said that, in that case, "the movie should've been a bunch of people walking down the street yelling things" lol. i didn't answer her straight away, but thinking about it more i sorta rationalized it for myself:
if you're thrown into a situation where you're interacting with a person (e.g.: you're their waiter) and a thought pops into your head, it would be an omission of truth if you choose not to say what is actually on your mind, & come up with something perhaps less offensive.

cheers

dcnative| 10.12.09 @ 11:41AM

Great movie. Had not heard they crack jokes about an invisible man in the sky. I was not the only one laughing out loud.

Dawn F| 10.12.09 @ 1:48PM

I thought the movie was fabulous. I heard it described as a "comedy with heart" and it is certainly that... and more. In addition to the intriguing premise, the performances were fantastic. It is really too bad that it is being criticized in some religious blogs, especially by people who seem to be afraid to see it for themselves. This is a movie that makes you laugh while you think, and that would be a good thing for anyone!

Luke Jones| 10.12.09 @ 3:01PM

Amazing movie. A friend and I went to see it on the day it was released and it was laugh-out-loud funny!! Apart from my friend and I, there were only three other people in the cinema but the screen was still filled with laughing.

Ricky Gervais has pulled a good one here.

Oh and by the way, the screen wasn't empty because nobody wanted to watch the film, it was empty because we went at lunchtime.

PolishKnight| 10.12.09 @ 3:56PM

I found the film's premise (and review) provocative in another way: I have wondered about the basis of people's religious and political beliefs (especially when the latter become intertwined) and they fail to distinguish between the lies and exaggerations they make to justify their ideology and beliefs to others and their own hypocrisies and the Star-Trek style short circuits that result...

Millions of leftists drive cars with bumper stickers that say cars are evil and everyone should ride bicycles. Or feminists who say that sexism is bad and want a rich guy to support her. But that's a mere hypocrisy. It becomes a joke, worthy of the film, when the feminists want a rich man to provide for her so she would have time to rail against the oppression of sexism. Or when a leftist preaches against the evils of eurocentricism and the wonders of diversity so that the USA can be more like... Sweden. We live in a society of people who really think like this. Not just a few random nuts or over silly trivialities, but a majority of people now live in these paradoxical fantasies.

In other words, the world is full of people who lie so brazenly that they can't wrap their minds around the concept that they're victims of their own lies. That they're in love with lying more than what they had originally lied to procure.

Like a gambler who became addicted to gambling because he had an early winning streak, most chronic liars become addicted to lying early in their lives. They lie to their parents to get something they really want and this sets up a pattern in their minds for future relationships. But enough about Bill Clinton...

Confronting liars is a lot of fun because, like the elephant in the room, it's both the last thing they think you'll throw in their face and the primary thing in the back of their minds they worry you might stumble upon. I've done this several times and got jaw dropping responses. Tons of fun.

The easy trick for this is to not get bamboozled by all the stuff they throw out to justify their position. Just carefully note their original premise (and try to get them on the record for stating it) and then start arguing with them. A habitual liar will say anything to avoid getting caught in a single lie and in weaving the web of lies, they'll ultimately sacrifice their original premise.

hypocrite| 10.13.09 @ 4:48AM

You're completely blind to major pillar of Ricky work: compassion. People who get such a kick out of 'uncovering' what you call hypocrites (ie everyone) make me wonder what it is they're busy trying to distact us from.

KPT| 10.12.09 @ 4:42PM

Think about it: the absence of lying must also means the absense of morality. The fact that he couldn't go through with sleeping with the blond lady based on a lie means he didn't only invent lying but morality as well. But how could he have known morality without first kowing guilt, and how could he know guilt without first committing the sin and experienceing it's consequences, and without all of this how could he have had the foresight that the act would have been wrong before committing the act... It was all just too much of a stretch for me to make. I thought the movie was flawed, and ultimately those flaws proved fatal.

Rich| 10.17.09 @ 2:28PM

"the absence of lying must also means the absense of morality."

Why? There are plenty of immoral acts that do not involve lying. Stealing is a simple example. You could do it and never mention it to anyone, and get away with it. This wouldn't mean you were free of guilt after: you've got sin, consequences, guilt, and therefore (by your own reasoning) morality, all without ever telling a lie.

The flaw, it would seem, is not that of Ricky Gervais' film...

PolishKnight| 10.12.09 @ 4:55PM

KPT, it's more subtle than that. The absence of lying means the absence of morality about lying. If it's impossible to lie, then there's no need to develop an ethics system about it.

It's also difficult to commit other crimes or sins without the ability to lie since it will make it impossible to do such a thing without getting caught.

The film also illustrates that there are good lies or, at least, omissions. Is it necessary to say "good morning, you're fat?" Or are these really "good" lies? Do they cushion people from changing negative behavior?

Roughcoat| 10.12.09 @ 6:35PM

Re: "American network TV couldn't bear that unflinching gaze into the abyss of loserdom that David Brent represented. As with so many other things, we had to sentimentalize and trivialize him."

What do you mean "we"? Do you include yourself among those who sentimentalize and trivialize the Steve Carrell character? Or are you providing a small leavening of falsehood to make yourself bearable to those of us with cruder sensibilities?

I am one of the latter. "The Office" makes me laugh. And, mind you, there's nothing wrong with laughs. I don't need and I don't want a comedian on a TV sit-com to show me the abyss; I look into every day in real life, thank you very much.

Dawn F| 10.12.09 @ 7:05PM

Re the comparisons between Carrell's character and Gervais' original... The British are much more upfront with their comedy. They had an amazing program called "Spitting Images" or something along those lines. It was strong in-your-face political humor -- the American version lasted one or two shows. We couldn't take it. Neither comedic sensibility is right or wrong, but I sense a real difference between our two cultures. BTW, Gervais "gets it," I think, and that's why a lot of Americans are becoming fans.

Carpenter| 10.13.09 @ 9:44AM

"Sptting Images" was a comic series using foam puppets devised by Messrs. Fluck and Law. Charicatures were merciless and physical flaws were cruelly exploited. Comedy was superficial and primarily ad hominum. Although they pilloried both left and right, some PC and entertainment icons were left untouched. How much more courage does it take to ridicule the powerful while standing behind one's own face?

Dawn F| 10.13.09 @ 7:25PM

Gee, "Carpenter," I don't know how much courage it takes when one hides their criticism "behind one's own face" ... or fake name.

matt| 10.21.09 @ 1:25PM

is this dawn french the comic???

Bored of hype| 10.12.09 @ 8:16PM

Ricky Gervais is the most over-rated "comedian" of all time. He's a tawdry little marketing man who9 makes "comedy" for thick bandwagon-jumpers.

susie| 10.13.09 @ 2:47PM

do you realize that your statement was just an insult with no facts or examples behind it, while all of us who love gervais give actual evidence to why we consider him one of the best comedians of all time? that sounds like the opposite of hype to me.

Roughcoat| 10.12.09 @ 10:37PM

I like Ricky Gervais a lot. But if he's the funniest man alive Vince Vaughn comes in a close second. And maybe Christopher Walken third.

Michael L. Hauschild| 10.13.09 @ 4:37AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMZwZiU0kKs

alyeska| 10.16.09 @ 11:47PM

"suicide kings" one of my favorite all-time movies!

KB25| 10.13.09 @ 11:46AM

This film left me completely cold and confused on so many levels. I'm not interested in the anti-religious debate as that's a personal view, but there were two key issues for me. 1. The definition of telling the truth doesn't involve an immediate outpouring of whatever's in your head at the time - telling the truth is simply not lying when responding to something, surely? 2. Why does not lying mean that people are only interested in the concept of marriage as a means to have genetically perfect children? Both these issues were huge flaws in the film for me; it just didn't make any sense. Moreover, why would not being able to lie mean that, for example, the doctor in the mother's death scene be hugely insensitive and suggest the canteen fajitas post-Mum departure? Lying doesn't mean being insensitive, even in our fabricated-heavy society. I'm disappointed that a man of Gervais' clear intelligence turned out such an odd, unfunny, clunky (hello product placement) and ill-thought-out film when the premise was brilliant and could have been developed into a really interesting and thought-provoking piece. This just made me angry and affirmed for me that Jennifer Garner is capable of nothing more than guppy-expressions and and glossy hair.

susie| 10.13.09 @ 2:54PM

you make several good points. however, i think that Gervais includes deception in lying. as for the doctor scene, most docs see many patients die every week, so they don't feel the same emotions that they affect to reassure the family of the patient that they really do care. i tend to agree with you in the 'marriage is only for genetically perfect kids' flaw in this movie, but i think that Gervais was being a bit sexist and assuming that most women are superficial, which is actually true most of the time. i completely agree with your disappointment at Jennifer Garner, i think Ricky could've chosen a much better leading lady. i also think that it could've been a much better movie, though i did throughly enjoy it.

WTF?| 10.14.09 @ 8:57PM

IT'S A MOVIE. IT'S JUST A MOVIE. RICKY GERVAIS ISN'T TRYING TO CONVERT ANYONE FROM CHRISTIANITY TO HINDU OR ATHEISM. IT'S JUST A CUTE LITTLE 89 MINUTE PG-13 $*&^% MOVIE!

JN| 10.15.09 @ 11:49PM

Worst movie I have ever seen. Painful and unbearable to watch. Gervais and Garner gave wooden performances. I'm usually a fan of Gervais and even liked Ghostown but this was an utter waste of time!

alex| 11.7.09 @ 4:39AM

my 1 pivotal problem with the article is your third "pivotal moment." are you suggesting that the only good reason not to lie is the Man in the sky?
perhaps he didn't want to deceive the woman he loved because it simply wasn't the right thing to do.

Geardoid| 11.16.09 @ 1:22PM

The premise of this story almost works (as did most Twilight-Zone material) if one takes every person in it to be soullness, especially the protagonist. In that light I think taking the piss out of the Torah might have been redeemable, had the main character encountered something in his emptiness to raise doubts about the finality of nihilism. As it is, the nihilism is unable even to give his suicidal neighbor any substantial reason to live, and it's a finality exceeding even his sweetheart's eugenic conceits (she at least has nicely ambiguous moments of misgiving). An 'ensoulment' moment might have happened on visiting his mother's grave to commune with her moldering dust beneath his feet, but he remains no more human than the doctor attending to her chart (and perhaps also doubly deluded to bother communing with atoms). So when Gervais can't resist the temptation to tear a page out of Life of Brian, I could guess there was no redemption and walked out just as his character comes bedragled to the door in a beard and a bedsheet. It's really too bad that a man with Ricky's education could within an hour be comfortable with being set for life as an atheist on paltry evidence from an innocence-dashing brother who like Cain envied Abel's childlike fideism. Here, East of Eden, Gervais thinks God's greatest mistake was the snake in the garden (who incidentally out of envy invented lying); but can't see the lousy philosophy of letting the innocence of unsullied belief, and truth, be trammeled by a meaner spirit. In the world of Gervais' character, there is no truth, beauty or goodness; so where's the philo, or the sophia ?

Eat Shit| 1.1.10 @ 11:38PM

Geardoid:

You're a fucking retard.

best movie of all time| 1.19.10 @ 11:21PM

gasbag bitches yapping on about retarded errors in a zen master film. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU

tara gomez| 1.31.10 @ 12:38AM

THIS MOVIE WOULD HAVE TO BE THE MOST OFFENSIVE MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!! I MEAN IT STARTED OUT REALLY GOOD BUT HOW DARE THEY MAKE FUN OF GOD, THIS MOVIE WAS VERY BLASPHEMOUS AND ANTI RELIGIOUS AND IT REALLY HURT ME...I ABSOLUTELY HATED THE MOVIE...!!!

Zoltan Hamori| 2.20.10 @ 6:56AM

I had to watch this movie on KLM flight as it was put on main screen on economy. I felt really bad after movie. It is deliberately blasphemous,. Those who liked it, I hope at least you understand it should not be 'forced' for anyone as it is really highly offensive for Christians. I pray for this retarded Gervais to be forgiven.

www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.2.10 @ 10:33PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 9:49PM

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 4:08PM

So, this helped me with my project for english. :D thankss.mesothelioma attorneys

rechie| 10.24.11 @ 10:06AM

Good luck getting people behind this one. Though you make some VERY fascinating points, you’re going to have to do more than bring up a few things that may be different than what we’ve already heard. What are trying to say here? What do you want us to think? It seems like you can’t really get behind a unique thought. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 9:48PM

The blog is in reality the great on this worthy subject. I match in together with your conclusions and looking forward to your coming updates. Thanks for sharing.
The blog is in reality the great on this worthy subject. I match in together with your conclusions and looking forward to your coming updates. Thanks for sharing.

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 9:49PM

Thanks for sharing.
The blog is in reality the great on this worthy subject. I match in together with your conclusions and looking forward to your coming updates. Thanks for sharing
yaz attorney

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 11:11AM

I simply further up your RSS feed to my MSN Information Reader. Seeking forward to reading extra from you in a while!Â?

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 10:12PM

I couldn't possibly read every comment for this article, but seems that some people are very upset with the notion that this guy is trying to get away wit something he shouldnt. Maybe a little more investigation is required to verify.

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 9:36PM

mnbzncbYou have got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour.
Actos Lawsuits

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 1:34PM

I'm so glad I found your article. I was able to get the insight I was looking for. Thanks again and keep this up.
L Tod Schlosser

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 3:57PM

It is incomprehensible to me now, but in general, the usefulness and significance is overwhelming. Thanks again and good luck!

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 3:26AM

Thank you for your custom. Brighter shopping, brighter prices,best choice and best discounts.
filipina women

chester| 11.11.11 @ 2:13AM

There is really a sense of accomplishment if you have done something by yourself. And what better way to share it by having a family member use it.

zoloft lawsuit

bogol| 11.16.11 @ 2:06PM

I really appreciate sharing this great post. Keep up your work. I want to express my admiration of your writing skill and ability to make readers read from the beginning to the end. I would like to read newer posts and to share my thoughts with you.
Actos Lawyers

bogol| 11.30.11 @ 1:52PM

Hello, i think that i saw you visited my web site so i came to “return the favor”.I am trying to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

Effexor Lawyer

bogol| 12.1.11 @ 10:45AM

was absolutely pleased to stumble upon this web-site.I wanted to thank you for your time for this wonderful read!! I unequivocally enjoyed every little bit of it and I have you saved to check out the new stuff on you website.

mesothelioma attorney

inah0911| 12.5.11 @ 2:59PM

It's actually a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you just shared this useful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

san diego personal injury attorney

inah0911| 12.6.11 @ 10:54AM

it looks like pretty good here and has a many comment thank you for tagging this awesome blog..

san diego bankruptcy attorney

IMYI| 12.15.11 @ 10:18PM

I was just searching for this information for some time. After six hours of continuous Googleing, at last I got it in your site. I wonder what is the Google's issue that does not rank this type of informative websites closer to the top. Usually the top sites are full of garbage.

Medtronic Infuse Lawsuit