Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00184
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 23:14:51 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Schmitt trigger
Scott Martin wrote:
>
> >> is quoted from Bob Shannon.
Oh boy! Here we go...
> > is quoted from Wilf Rigter.
>
> >good story anyway. I think it was a pretty bold move for Tilden to
> >patent his ideas although he probably hasn't made much money
> >from it.
> Not yet....but it has protected him from people like NASA,JPL,and
> Electronics Now, to name a few.
And rightfully so, but where does this patent protection end?
Reading a lot of the opinions on this list, even microprocessor based
robots ~may~ be BEAM technology. Patents are not that broad.
> >>but Tilden's attatudes towards patents and claiming BEAM as his
> >>personal intellectual property seems to be unjustified. I dont think his
> >>patents are enforcable.
> Don't make that mistake...they are, and have been defended before.
> People who criticize his patent usually are the ones who are trying to
> make a buck from it...are you? It's ok to admit it...just keep it in
> perspective.
No, BEAM robots are a wonderful hobby for me, but I do some commercial
work with CPU based robots. These robots do not use SE's NV's or
Bicores. They do use H bridges and such, which ARE NOT beam technology
as is often claimed.
Yes, I'm trying to make a buck with them too, but my idea of where BEAM
begins and ends is a bit different than many other opinions.
Please keep in mind I have no problems with commercialisim, or patents
and intellectual property rights. I'm in the (long) process of getting
several patents at work currently. Patnets can be wonderful things.
> >>In my personal opinion, I think that BEAM as a 'new technology' is
> >>pure hype.
> If not for the "hype" would you have heard about this "new technology"?
> Would you be on this list?
First, by reading part of an off-list conversation, you may be taking my
words out of context just a bit.
Secondly, your totally missing my point. Would I have heard of this
technology?
Yes, I would have, and I was quite familiar with the underlying concepts
before they were given a cute name.
> >>BEAM is becomming almost religion, with 'gods' and fanatics. This
> >>bothers me. I've read responses from people that actually beleive
> >>that a photopopper is 'smarter' than a Pentium chip, or superior to
> >>any CPU based (which is often an 'evil' thing) robot.
> >>.....
> >>BEAM or not? I actually think the question itself is flawed,because
> >>BEAM is a false concept as its being presented to people today.
> >>The false concept is based on the incorrect idea that stimuli-response
> >>based systems are new when they clearly predated the microprocessor!
>
> This confusion is usally caused by uninformed people trying to pass
> themselves off as experts in BEAM. You don't see any of the old time
> BEAMers claiming this.
Your probably quite correct here Scott. Yet we still have all the patent
and trademark formalities to deal with. Mr. Tilden does not seem to
correct any of the misperceptions about the origins of this field of
robotics either.
> >>BEAM is a tool that can teach us many things, but it should not
> >>become a fanatical movement or thought of as a revolution in
> >>robot design.
> Unfortunately, there are "fanatics" among us. It is a revolution
> tho...in that it has made people realize that a CPU is not nessary
> to controll certian functions. I would like to state for the record that
> I LIKE CPU's... Computers have played a big part in my life.
The only people who really beleived that a CPU was needed clearly did
not understand the true development and evolution of robotics!
Their failure to recognise the early work makes BEAM a revolution?
I dont think so.
> >>After all, what about Marvin Minski's Perceptrons? That was back
> >>in the 1960's, they used vacuum tubes, but had learning machine robots
> >>long before mobile CPU based robots.
>
> >Minski, a shining light for all of us! (don't worry, I didn't say God)
> >
> Nor would I. Minski and his colleages went out of their way to
> suppress AI research that didn't fit their "vision" setting AI back
> by at least 20 years...and thats in the history books.
Ahh, I've worked with Minski. How did he suppress research that did not
fit his vision? Have you ever met him? I'd like to hear more about
this. I'm not saying its not true, but having known him, and discussed
many different concepts with him, I find this claim shocking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home