[MURG] MU intellectual property

[Yan King Yin]

From: digfarenough <digfarenough at yahoo.com>

>> >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!"

It's more like: "You cannot apply these electro-phys
properties to uploading / whole brain emulation; other
applications are fine."

>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

The reason I advocate this is not because I want to
get rich, but because I think the only way to
accelerate progress is to establish IP. Sooner or later
uploading will be privatized, but if we don't have
IP now our efforts will be ripped off by late comers.

[ BTW there're a few mistakes with the wire-filled brain
idea. Probably 90% of the web site needs to be revised.
The convergence algorithm, in its simplest form, does not
work; Nanotechnology seems to be required afterall;
Backgound noise from neural activity will affect the
wires but it has been neglected; etc ]

>> >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?

It's really the other way round: The *specific*
application of the research is being restricted,
whereas the general application is not. For example
a person can apply those results to building an AI,
develop a drug, etc.

This whole situation reminds me of Celera Genomics
back then. Biologists were generally aware that the
genome is of fundamental importance. Craig Ventor tried
to privatize it but his success was compromised
because there was overlapping with the public effort.
It's like trying to privatize something that's
available for free. We can learn something from this.
In both cases we're dealing with IP on a very long-
-term basis and there's not much experience to draw
on.

yky


____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005