[MURG] Uploading IP (intellectual property)

[Yan King Yin]

From: "Joseph J. Strout" <joe at strout.net>

>Yes, it still is true.  If the techniques are public domain then 
>there will be many companies offering them.  It will still be an 
>expensive, complex process (at first) and "many" here is likely to 
>mean four or five.  But that is far, far better than having one 
>company that can legally prevent others from participating, and 
>therefore has a monopoly.

The idea is to organize a research consortium, not a
monopoly. How many companies will eventually be offering
uploading service, will depend on how various *needs* of
the general public will emerge. The research consortium
will focus on the least common denominator of uploading,
most importantly the neurochemical database, plus some
essential algorithms or software. I imagine quite a few
companies will then license these techniques to develop
their own versions of uploading. The thing is, right now
I can't really visualize the various forms of uploading
that may emerge, but they will emerge when there appears
new possibilities that can be exploited. If you understand
this, there is nothing essentially wrong about monopolies.
The anti-trust law specifically have a clause that allows
research consortia to be formed despite that they may
seem to be monopolies, as long as they help progress in
the industries.

>>The computer itself at least costs money.  The software
>>will also likely be commercial. I can imagine that some
>>software can be developed for free, but why would that
>>be a better outcome if the programmers don't get paid
>>for what they do?
>
>Programmers do get paid for what they do even when no patents are 
>involved.  (That is in fact how I make my living.)

If your major concern is software, then I concede that
there could be a lot of creativity and differentiation.
So the software aspect is unlikely to be consolidated by
one company. But you're missing a lot of other components,
such as proteomics.

>My idea is: the process is available as widely and cheaply as 
>possible, with high quality too.  That is best fostered by the core 
>technologies being public domain, so that there can be competition.

If the core technologies are expensive to obtain, then
it makes sense to privatize it. Think about railroads,
airlines, electricity etc. Usually governments don't
provide these things for free.

>>  It boils down to who grabs how big a slice.
>
>No.  Your analogy assumes a zero-sum game, which does not apply to 
>macroeconomics in general, and especially to mind uploading, which is 
>a medical procedure.

What you say is true, but how does that relate to whether
uploading technologies should be privatized or not?

>>There's more to it than rewarding contributors. It
>>also means extra funding for research *now* and thus
>>accelerating progress.
>
>No, it doesn't.  Perhaps I'm assuming too much and we're thinking of 
>different countries.  In the united states, medical research is 
>funded mostly by the government (NIH) and by non-profit organizations 
>(e.g. HHMI).  Pure research proceeds through publication; IP stifles 
>publication and stifles progress, so labs don't make use of it. 
>Recognition -- and additional funding -- come from making important 
>discoverings and publishing them, not from trying to greedily hoard 
>your findings and make a buck.

Calm down and try not to call others greedy.

IP does not stifle publication: we all know what PCR does
but it is patented. I don't see why it stifles progress
either. As for being greedy, I have repeatedly stressed it's
the acceleration and increase in funding that's important.
Federal funding is ~10x that of venture capital in healthcare,
but the long-term trend, I think, will be towards privatization.

>Perhaps you should talk to some people who are actually engaged in 
>pure research (e.g. in neuroscience, which is the field most directly 
>related to mind uploading) and ask them where their funding comes 
>from.  (Randal?)

I fully understand the different mind-set in the academic
community. But the IP securities can also be applied to
them as well. They just recieve their usual funding PLUS
securities derived from IP. It's up to the government to
decide how to pay thier researchers; Overall it will be
contracts between the consortium and government agencies
such as NIH.

For example, Randal will continue to get paid from his uni,
and if he agrees to sell his research results (with an
agreement with his uni) to the consortium, then he will
recieve his share of IP securities as well.

The point is that *everyone* involved in relevant research
will be given a chance to grab a slice, the size of which will
be agreed upon a contractual basis.

Why do we need to go to so much trouble? Mainly because
currently we're just sitting here waiting. As long as
we don't see uploading, we MUST find something to do.
And it's not good enough just to work on some remotely
related area hoping it will someday move closer to the
goal. It does help, but not good/fast enough.

YKY


____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10