On 6/2/07, Bob Mottram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ownership of things and establishing who owns what seems to be very
important to humans. One time I bought my two young nephews identical
toys, and then subsequently watched them fighting over who owned which
toy - even though they were exactly alike. What does it mean to own
something, and do other animals have a concept of ownership? If I own
something I may to some extent monopolise its usage, but what about
things which I own but rarely or never use? Can I own something
non-physical, like an idea, and if so what does that really mean? Can
I own an idea which I duplicated and then modified slightly according
to my unique needs?
Although I'm an open source fan I don't think I would ever sign up to
the things you're proposing. Forcing developers to pay a fee before
they use your system simply ensures that no developers will join your
project. The whole saga of non-disclosure, identity verification,
anti-competitiveness and software patents I find quite nauseating, as
the saying goes "like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much
loved friend". When true AGI emerges I sincerely hope that it does
not appear within the confines of this kind of restrictive system.
Powerful new technology concentrated into the hands of a few
individuals who exclusively monopolise its use could cause a great
deal of damage in my opinion, and hinder its wider application
especially within developing countries. Instead I would prefer to see
something more akin to a balance of power, where nobody really "owns"
the system and it is open to extensive public scrutiny and debate. A
more open approach is more likely to lead to a positive singularity,
as opposed to some of the dystopian scenarios.
A patent does "monopolise" an exclusive right, and the owner can charge
whatever s/he wants for a license (though this does not equal a monopoly in
the market). Anyway I propose to remedy this problem by fixing the license
price of all patents we acquire, by applying a fixed formula based on
individuals' assessment of their contributions.
You keep mentioning the "utopia/dystopia" constrast but is your idea of
utopia really attainable? Is your utopia where everyone should give out
their ideas for free? Or do you agree that inventors of algorithms etc
should be rewarded through *some* accounting methods? The point of my
proposal is to reasonably estimate the worth of ideas and thus setting a
limit to what patents can extort.
Forcing developers to pay a fee before they use your
system simply ensures that no developers will join your
project.
Maybe developers can pay a very small up-front fee in cash, with the rest
paid by shares of the future software product? That'd be affordable by
developers running on low budgets.
YKY
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
