Re: About rant on Dave Thomas site, titled 'imitation...'

James Britt wrote:
> Jeff Pritchard wrote:
>> My question would be...what can we come up with to replace the outdated 
>> and nearly worthless "patent process" with some sort of a "runs at the 
>> speed of technology" mechanism for giving credit where credit is due? 
>> Without some new mechanism, we have only two directions to go...
> 
> Any mechanism would need to consider that different people will have
> similar ideas independent of each other, and that very few ideas emerge
> out of a vacuum; even knowing when an idea is actually new, instead of a
> (simple) variation on existing practice(s), is hard to pin down.
> 
> --
> James Britt
> 


Thanks James,
As the old saying goes, if you put a million red-necks in front of a 
million typewriters, one of them will eventually write Unix.  If you put 
two million red-necks in front of two million typewriters, would two of 
them write Unix?  More likely one would write BSD, and another would 
write some other flavor of *nix.  My point is that simultaneous 
equivalent acts of genius makes for a good urban legend, but seems 
rather unlikely.  There would be differences between the two creations - 
enough that one of them would be found to be preferable by the common 
man in the street.  If each of them were bound by the rules to use his 
and only his version of the "invention", they would each benefit but 
only to the degree that their version is deemed superior by independent 
"customers".

Just one brief thought on the direction something like this could go...
A "Patent Process" for the new Millennium:
窶「 The author of something "new":  uses, acknowledges, and might choose 
to add to an "open source" that relates to the accomplishment of his 
creation.  The scaffolding of the "invention".
窶「 Things that the author considers novel can be left out of "open 
source" and held back as proprietary and not to be shared or copied 
without his consent (and remuneration).  These things would be openly 
described by the author as proprietary and not to be copied. The first 
verifiable such publishing would always win.
窶「 The open source community would then rigidly enforce both of the above 
points, starting by actively turning their backs on any "new" creation 
that fails on either of these points.  If the "community" makes an 
author aware of his sins and receives no retribution from the accused, 
the community might then declare "open season" on the offender.  (that 
means whatever you might want it to mean)
窶「 Any attempted interference with this process by a Lawyer, would be 
treated as an infraction, and dealt with in the same way that any other 
infraction of the rules would be - as moderated by the outrage and/or 
indifference of "the community".

Only by keeping the rules of such a system as simple and unfettered by 
"lawyer speak" as the above could such a system survive and flourish.  I 
think the non-specific nature of the third point is worthy of note.  It 
leaves open the possibility of escalation based purely on perceived 
heinosity (new word?) and repeated offenses.  Hell hath no fury like a 
planet full of scorned hackers.

Its other saving grace is that this is "government of, by, and for the 
people" - almost by definition.  It requires no agreement, no vote. 
Each person enforces the rules based on the degree of their outrage at 
the offense of an evildoer.  If an author commits a minor or gray area 
infraction, most likely his punishment will be limited by the 
indifference of "the community".  Major offenders would be "stoned" back 
to the stone-age (maybe even literally).


Humbly submitted as the solution to all that is wrong with the world (or 
not).

----

I believe that the U.S. died on a calm summer afternoon when somebody 
looked up and for the first time realized that we had all slept just a 
little too long, and that an armed uprising by the general populace no 
longer stood any slightest chance of succeeding.  It is now government 
"of, by, and especially for the government".

We lost this country one little piece at a time.  Let's take back the 
world by the same process.  Open Source Government - gotta love it! 
Guns?  We don't need no stinkin' guns!  GWB, your "government" has just 
been deprecated by "the community".
Jeff Pritchard
The Mountain Man

(FWIW, I would like for you to consider the above description of "the 
community" as my own contribution to open source government.  I only ask 
that when you think of or speak the term "the community" that  you 
pronounce it the way South Park's Cartman would - the communitay!)

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.