Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02350
To: JVernonM@aol.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:31:19 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/13/99 7:37:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> bshannon@tiac.net writes:
>
> >
> > I feel that the ability to 'transplant' sets of behaviors and directly
> > compare them in a common body.
> >
> > The common body eliminates a lot of variables while permiting a direct
> > evaluation of different sets of behaviors. This would greatly
> > accelerate
> > behavioral development and robot evolution.
> >
> That's exactly my point. The common body would give some kind of platform to
> test and improve both the brain and the body.
Wow, thats a good point I'd overlooked!
With a standard body, new mechanical designs with the same control
system could
be evaluated to directly test their relative performance.
> We all know what terms to use
> to build and improve that brain. But, without a standardized method of
> categorizing the separate components of the body and how it can be improved,
> then there is no common point of reference to expedite and test that body.
Agreed.
Also its impractical to directly compare other peoples designs unless we
all start to duplicate each others robots exactly, and thats often
impossible.
> 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.
This is incorrect.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
> None I should
> think. So, why are we discussing building a better mouse trap for the already
> established hierarchy of BEAM?
I dont beleive this is a factor, if its a CPU based design.
> It would seem that the only legal forum for
> presenting new, better mechanics that can benefit the creator is Solarbotics.
Huh? You have lost me here.
> In other words, the only way for you to benefit from what you build is to get
> an OK from Tilden and then start cutting the pie among those who called the
> lawyers first. Actually, it's a little weirder than that. When the discussion
> leaned toward copyright and patents on the list before I got a letter from
> Mark Dalton informing me that if there was a patent or copyright question I
> just needed to talk to one of "them" and "they" would talk to Tilden about
> it. Who the hell is "them"? is there more than one name on those legal
> documents?
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.
Relax, unless its a commercial product, you can violate any patent you
wish
with the full blessing of the law.
> It really had the chilling effect of placing all of us who love
> the building and would like to contribute into a situation of being not one
> of "them". 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.
I think your failing to see an oppertunity here.
Abandon the hype and clique of BEAM, and evolve into a much more
efficient way
to develop truly intellegent small robots.
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.
> 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.
Lawers are only a problem if you have a product, or use a trademark in a
transaction.
There is no law that prevents you from developing new BEAM technology,
and even
getting your own patent. Please try to understand the rules, and you
will see that its really not as bad as you seem to think Jim.
There is even less preventing you from developing new non-BEAM robotic
technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home