[MURG] Uploading IP (intellectual property)

[Yan King Yin]

From: cat13 at illrepute.org

>> But how do you create a reward system when you don't protect
>> your assets with IP?
>
>The source of our difference is in considering the products of research
>to be privately owned assets.

The "privately" owned asset are the patents, which will generate
future income. Then, that income can be redistributed to the
original contributors via the use of tokens. The contributors
may be academic or industrial researchers. Therefore it does not
separate the two sectors or exclude any one.

>What's the reward system for?

A reward system generally assigns credits to people who
have made efforts to *create* a certain product. Any
corporate management deals with this issue, although some
would say it's not all-important.

The open source movement generally overlooks the reward
issue and therefore has a serious problem.

>> I don't really agree with your criticisim of IP as detrimental,
>> I think that's one-dimensional thinking (ie a single objective
>> function such as goodness of end-product) without appreciating
>> the complexities of economics.
>
>I would be grateful if you were to enlighten me with your superior grasp
>of the complexities of economics.

I don't understand economics very well at all, but am
trying to look at the problem from a financing perspective
which I have studied a bit. The open-source model is
entirely inappropiate for MU because no one will ever be
able to make significant contributions to MU in their
home-grown laboratories; whereas most people who own a PC
can contribute code.

>Since you're not seriously suggesting that any governmental or private
>backer will fund the entire uploading project, could you clarify what
>you are suggesting?

The consortium will *complete* the whole brain emulation
project, and then it will start to generate revenue from
the product. Only then, it will begin to pay back the
original contributors whom the consortium has owed tokens.

>If you're suggesting that a subset of the required research is done and
>kept proprietary, who will pick it up and do more?  Since it's proprietary,
>the only group that can further it is the group that started it, which
>leads to a single group funding the entirety of the project, which is not
>reasonable.

I'm actually suggesting a single consortium for the
entire brain emulation project (separate from BCI). It
is difficult but I think technically it is feasible.
The reason why this is necessary is that a partial
project cannot generate enough income to pay back
the funding, which is a form of debt financing (ie
we get funding now and pay back later).

>So you're talking about accumulating funds for the entire project?

Yes.

>I would think the costs would be orders of magnitude greater, but there
>are probably other people here far more qualified than me to provide an
>estimate.

I think so too, but this will also be a really long-
-term project and it has more uncertainties.

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