Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02310
To: JVernonM@aol.com
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:17:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> Another thought. If those that contribute to the development of
> that body are able to cause some kind of serious evolutionary
> advancements then who benefits? I guess in this situation where
> the lawyers and patents have been put in place, it would only be
> Mr. Tilden. How many people do you think contributed to the
> development of the body mechanics of the Model T for use by Henry
> Ford and did it for no monetary or historical credit? None I
> should think. So, why are we discussing building a better mouse
> trap for the already established hierarchy of BEAM?
You make it sound as if it is antisocial to patent one's
inventions. I suppose a case could be made, but patenting is
accepted practice. Why make a fuss about it?
---8<---
> If we're not one of "them", then why are we so convinced we can
> contribute in any meaningful way? I guess we can if we just lower
> our eyes and hand over anything we sweat over. After all that is
> said, I'm beginning to wonder why we care. When I told Wilf that
> I thought we had a unique opportunity to collaborate like no
> other field before, I had forgotten about the lawyers. I had
> forgotten how the joy and satisfaction is sucked out of
> everything in pursuit of the all mighty buck. It really makes me
> wonder why we try so hard. Maybe transferring our efforts to PIC
> based bots is the only viable solution to this problem. Unless we
> come up with a suneater or some other lawyer proof method.
Is Mark T's patent barring progress? I think not. You can design
all sorts of little and large robots, solar powered or otherwise,
walking or on wheels without ever getting close to that particular
patent. You can easily stay away from Nervous Nets, Bicores and all
those other attractively named circuits. I find them interesting,
but they have yet to pop up as the logical way to do something I
want to do, electronically. And if you absolutely want to put your
work on Tilden's foundation - well, you could always patent your
improvements. So what's the problem?
The discussion sounds a little backwards to me. Normal design
practice starts with a task. There is something you want your
gadget to do. You write that down as best you can, and then you go
to work, taking whatever technology fits best. You're not going to
avoid uCs, or use them at all cost. You're not starting the process
with a Nervous Net thingy either; that's like saying "whatever
else I do, there will be a Colpitts oscilator in this `bot!"
I wonder if what's lacking here isn't a set of clearly defined
tasks, such as solving a maze, finding and extinguishing a flame or
beating another team at Robot Soccer. Once the tasks are there we
can have un designing `bots to perform them faster. Progress will
be visible and measurable; those who think avoiding uCs or
incorporating Nervous Nets is the answer will have the chance to
prove their point.
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home