[MURG] Uploading IP (intellectual property)

[Yan King Yin]

I'll just reply to all in one post:

==========================================
>From: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
>
>[Patents] might be good for industry (though not for the customer), it's a
>desaster for science. Where, already, publish-or-perish has lead to omission
>of critical information from publication, thus preventing it to be replicated
>elsewhere.

The general idea of IP is incompatible with the traditional
way of doing science, but I think it is better to make the
change (maybe gradually).

There are various problems with the traditional way, such
as the need to apply for grants, and in principle it is
also incompatible with a free market economy.

>I'm opposed to patenting anything existing I happen to have discovered vs.
>patent of an engineered gene with enough novelty to stand apart from stuff
>already found in the natural diversity pool.

This is a very important issue. The goverment cannot be
relied upon to create the full neurochemical database
sufficient for uploading. Therefore at some point we will
need to fund it privately. I predict most scientists will
be interested in getting uploading IP because if uploading
can happen, the neurochemical database will hardly have any
other usage, as our brains will become obsolete.

=========================================
>From: "Randal A. Koene" <rak at minduploading.org>
>
>I guess I may as well chime in with my opinion. I don't know enough about
>patents to make well-educated observations. As it is, I am suspicious of
>patents in basic research, with one caveat: If it is possible to use a
>patent to secure the open availability of research then that is
>appreciated. Perhaps holding a patent in some area can secure openness if
>the patent is wielded with such enlightenment, and perhaps that can remove
>the danger of stifling patents being taken out by others. I really don't
>know if that is a realistic possibility though. I should point out that
>none of the labs I am currently working with take out patents on their
>research.

Simply patenting the idea of uploading, even with a lot of
details, will not work because of the limited patent life
of 20 years. Also it is unlikely that anyone would be able
to patent uploading as a whole. But a research consortium
can resolve all these problems. 

=========================================
>From: "Joseph J. Strout" <joe at strout.net>
>
>A much easier, cheaper, and more certain way to do that is to just 
>publish what you find.  Then it's in the public domain.

*Not* patenting uploading may make the end product cheaper
because of cost-cutting in development, since we basically
just rip off any research in the public domain for free.
But then again it may not, because whenever you have free
stuff for grabs, chaos ensues. You only need to look at
early computing history of Atanasoff, UNIVEC and IBM etc,
to see how newcomers routinely rip off others' ideas if
they're not patented. Therefore I think the research
consortium is a better idea, because it does a better job
of giving credit and reward to original contributors.

==========================================
>From: "Randal A. Koene" <rak at minduploading.org>
>
>Yes, publishing is of course a way to get the research into the public
>domain. My (naive) suggestion was more along the following lines: A
>researcher publishes useful information for mind uploading. Then a company
>researcher makes a small addition to that and patents the whole thing. If
>the original research had been patented, could the original researcher
>take steps against its inclusion in a patent that seeks to counter
>openness?

The original researcher, A, cannot prevent another guy B
from filing a new patent that makes use of A's work. But
B will still be UNABLE to USE his own invention because
he is prevented by law to use A's basic technology. The
basic thing about a patent is that it prevents others from
making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing
the patented invention. Also in order to file a patent it
must be novel and non-obvious.

==========================================

IN SUMMARY:

What the reseach consortium will do is:
1) determine what research is needed
2) subcontract to researchers / institutions
3) create strategic patents
4) licence the invention (database etc) to companies that
   develop uploading
5) pay the original researchers with income from licensing

Why this is better than leaving it all to public-domain:
1) original researchers most likely will not be rewarded
2) federal grants may be rejected or tedious to apply
3) long-term and top-down planning is difficult

Hope this is not too complicated,
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