Subject: Re: small worlds and better than ransom
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:49:09 -0700

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > I do it because I'm very good at it and I'm not very good
>  > at many things.
>
> So far you haven't been terribly good at making money at it, though.
> At least not proportionate to your contribution.  So why are you still
> at it?
>
>   

Because that is what I do.



>  > I do enjoy it
>
> That's my guess. :-)
>
>   

It is becoming more difficult to enjoy it.



>  > If there is a systematic way to invent new "basis sets" of
>  > technology, and to reward the investors in that system with an
>  > advantage in claiming value from the resulting "spans"
>
> Traditional IP is a way to provide such an advantage, but it doesn't
> encourage basis set creation as much as it creates a tragedy of the
> anticommons in a basis set.  But basis sets are exactly the "ideas"
> that nobody (except robber barons) wants to be patentable or
> copyrightable.  So I think you're in trouble here; on the traditional
> side you have a very inefficient way to encourage fundamental
> research, on the more comprehensive side you have an "advantage" that
> scares all right-thinking people to death (and causes Bill Gates to
> drool like a two-year-old).
>   

Either I am good at this kind of research or I am not.  And if
I am good at it, and afforded more opportunity to do it, then
those most closely engaged with the process stand to gain.



>
> Again, the "business of having customers" is redundant.  You are in
> business if and only if you have customers.  The question remains: how
> do you attract those customers?
>
>   

Show a little leg?   Put on the red light?



>  > > DNA Lounge, anyone? *chortle*
>  > 
>  > Touche.
>
> Yeah, but it's Jamie who's going to have a new Heidelburg-style scar
> on his cheek. ;-)
>
>
>   


Heh.

-t