[MURG] MU intellectual property

[digfarenough]

(sorry for all the quoted text, there's a lot more of
it than my comments)

> >MU requires a huge neuroscience knowledgebase. We
> >need researchers to work out a lot of mechanisms
> >and pathways.
> 
> True.
> 

I second this. All in favor?

> >  So we need to turn these research
> >results into IP.
> 
> False.  Neuroscience is one of the biggest areas of
> research already, 
> with hundreds of millions of dollars of research
> funds spent 
> annually.  Some of this is done for commercial R&D,
> but most of it is 
> done just for basic research.
> 

I'll be honest, I don't know what intellectual
property is. But.. (skip to my next comment)

> >  Unfortunately patents only last
> >for 20 years. Once published, the results become
> >public.
> 
> Good thing, too.  20 years is plenty of time to make
> it worthwhile 
> for a company to commercialize an invention; after
> that, it should 
> become public so that others can improve on it.
> 

...it sounds like you want to say "the electro-phys
properties of amacrine cells are mine! you cannot know
them unless you pay me!"
maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't want MU so I can
get rich, just the opposite in fact, I want MU so I
don't need money any more.. (well, I suppose I'll
still need a little to pay for hardware and
electricity and such.. but both should be cheap)
but if IP somehow instead relates to the technique of
MU, such as your wire-filled brain idea, then I can
understand wanting to patent that (or protect against
idea theft in some other way), and I support it

> >So my suggestion is to start a research consortium
> >and have researchers send the results to us first,
> >and then we'll provide channels for publication in
> >which we include restrictions on its use for MU
> >purposes. This is quite reasonable because there
> >could be a whole lot of other applications for
> those
> >research results. In this way we'll be able to
> >establish IP beyond the 20-year limit.
> 
> Why would we want to do any of that?  Actually, it
> goes both ways: 
> why would we want this, and why would a researcher
> want it?  If I 
> were still doing neuroscience research (which
> admittedly I'm not), 
> I'd much rather get my paper published in Science or
> a prestigious 
> neuro journal than some obscure journal with weird
> IP rules.
> 

I've tried to avoid being taken in by that
try-to-get-published-in-science mentality.. and the
strict length requirements turn me off, but I agree
about the IP rules.. 
restricting the use of data or techniques is not
helpful to science.. where would we be if it was
illegal to use calculus for anything other than
physics? (is that a bad example?)
how about: where would we be if the printing press
could only be used to reproduce the bible?

> My $0.02,
> - Joe
> 

my saving's account balance,
 -Eric

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/