Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02335
To: sbolt@xs4all.nl
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:04:05 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
In a message dated 4/14/99 9:14:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sbolt@xs4all.nl
writes:
> 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?
>
Not a fuss really. Just an observation. Inventors and their patents should be
protected. I do have some doubts as to the legal strength of those patents
since they are extremely similar to many 50 year old circuits. But hey, those
early contributors that laid the ground work are never mentioned in any
official capacity. BEAM is NEW and different, and unique-right? Besides, if I
were concerned about the legality of a circuit, it would be a simple matter
to change it to suit MY patent lawyers. I mean, isn't that kinda what
happened in the BEAM beginning? Or did Tilden invent the very first and only
relaxation oscillator? The very first hard wired neural net perhaps? No, he
layered his work onto that of those that came before he was born. But, now
those ideas are his without mention of the history that precluded it. I
didn't really want to get into a discussion about the legalities of BEAM
again, it seems to be a very touchy issue. Have you noticed that BEAM is
called the educational side of this deal, (which seems a recent change) but
the education is purely Tilden. No history. No mention of how he got from
point A to point B. No names of those that set the ground work. It's like an
art history class about Rafael without any mention of Michelangelo. And I
guess that's the real problem.
By the way Steve, are you one of "them"?
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home