Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02338
To: bshannon@tiac.net
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:27:15 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
In a message dated 4/14/99 9:35:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bshannon@tiac.net writes:
> If the improvement was made by an individual, then its their
> intellectual property.
> If the improvement was made by the group as a whole, say over this list,
> then
> it becomes arguable that the improvement is a collective work.
>
> But if its done by a group over the internet, then its not patentable at
> all, or at least, not in the US.
That parts a little scary.
> I'm actually getting a patent at work currently, and there are strict
> rules on the subject of disclosure. If you describe your circuit openly
> over the internet, then its been 'disclosed' and is not patentable.
That part is a lot scary!
> Ahhh, they were paid engineers. Thats our jobs. My patent at work will
> earn
> me a small bonus (I'm lucky at that!) but it will not directly earn me
> money.
> It will earn the company money, and hopefully I will continue to get
> paid.
Just like the artistic professions. I should have seen that one. It seems all
creative careers have the same situations.
> Huh? You have lost me here.
I guess I was referring to all official stuff being sold at Solarbotics as
the sole Beam distributor. No knock to Dave. Although I always seem to try to
poke him in the eye by accident. Or is it? Maybe subconsciously I'm trying to
get him back for all those minivan payments I've been making lately :).
> According to one esoteric web search, 'them' are actually a large batch
> of ill
> mannered giant ants from an old black and white science fiction movie.
I love that one.
> Relax, unless its a commercial product, you can violate any patent you
> wish
> with the full blessing of the law.
I know, I even think Mark D. was probably trying to give me a route of
communication and nothing more. Like I said, I was tired and my family has
learned to avoid me at those times.
> Abandon the hype and clique of BEAM, and evolve into a much more
> efficient way
> to develop truly intellegent small robots.
Amen!
> Think about it.
>
> If you want to test your new design against a photopopper (the only
> benchmark we have in the field!) then you can know something about your
> robots relative performance, given that they have the same behavior
> sets.
>
> But how can you know how your robots performance to my photovore if we
> are both 'better' than a stock Solarbotics photopopper?
>
> This problem gets much worse if my photovore has different behaviors
> than yours. Now we would be forced to either exchange prototypes for
> testing, or build identical duplicates of other's designs.
>
> This is simply too expensive, and too time consuming.
>
> If the goal is to develop 'better' behaviors, then we need a much more
> advanced system of developing behaviors than the current BEAM
> technology.
Yes, I agree.
Please try to understand the rules, and you
> will see that its really not as bad as you seem to think Jim.
Yep, it's never as bad as I think it sometimes is. I've been told it's the
price I pay for my art. I don't know. It sounds a little Narcissistic to me.
Hey, you should have seen me at 19, I've mellowed considerably :). When you
get to know me you'll roll your eyes when I go off, like everyone else I
know.
Jim
By the way, to the kid who needed tech advice before (I think it was a kid)
and was so polite about not interrupting our debate, we're the ones breaking
the rules here kid. You should be telling us not to interrupt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home