[MURG] Uploading IP (intellectual property)

[cat13 at illrepute.org]

"Yan King Yin" <y.k.y at lycos.com> writes:

> 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.

All right: the source of our difference is in considering the products of
research to be patents.  What's important to you is securing a financial
return; I'm arguing for the importance of getting data to as many researchers
as possible.  The 'products of research', for you, are patents; the 'products
of research', for me, are data.

> >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.

I'm familiar with the purpose of reward systems in general.  I was asking
why you wanted one.

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

I could say "it's worked pretty well for a pretty long time," and be right,
but it might be more useful if I pointed out that the goals of the open
source movement are different from yours; the open source movement would
have serious problems were it invented to make money for YKY, but since it
has other ends, I dispute your claim.

> >> 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.

Let's not follow the open-source model.
Instead, why don't we follow the model under which science has progressed to
date?  Why don't we follow the peer-review model?  Why don't we follow the
shoulders-of-giants model?

> >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.

How will the consortium fund the entire project?  I understand that it will
repay contributors after this many-decades-or-centuries-long project is over,
but how will it find enough contributors willing to put in enough resources?

> 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).

I'm not sure enough wealth currently exists to borrow.  Even if it did, why
would J. Random Investor lend when no return is expected within his lifetime?