Glotmorf on 7 Oct 2003 03:53:33 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Proto-prop: Patents

On 6 Oct 2003 at 22:44, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> >> -I'd have to edit the patent every time I wanted to
> >> make a new type of Gnome, it looks like.
> >
> >This is a problem.
> -Well, kind of. I mean, the rule has to be edited for every new type
> of Gnome, too, but it seems to me that rules should be easier changed
> than patents.- > >> And once I >> did that, someone else could make a
> slightly >> different patent and make every type of Gnome except >>
> the one I just added. > >This is probably not a problem. Remember, the
> patent >application is a proposal; if someone tries to patent
> >something that already exists, people (probably) won't >vote for it.
> -Probably isn't our friend. When you have three people who control the
> entire supply of a good everyone wants (probably not Gnomes), and
> someone else comes along and says "I'll halve the price," guess which
> wins, ethics or greed?- > >> I think if a society vanishes >>
> mysteriously (I don't plan on quitting, just so >> everyone knows),
> just change or repeal the rules >> that screws up. Losing the ability
> to buy Gnomes >> isn't going to break the game. > >Speaking of
> societies vanishing, if we do end up using >patents we should figure
> out what happens when the >controlling entity ceases to exist. I
> suppose any >patents held would just become Public Domain. > >> Hmm.
> What about this... Patent applications only >> cover the class of
> object (Gnomes, Speeder Upgrades, >> Whoopass and Whoopass
> Accessories), and all of the >> various types of those objects (Fire
> Gnomes, >> Vertical Boosters, Monoliths) have to fit some >>
> definition in the patent (Gnomes are: blahblahblah) >> to be covered
> by it. > >This is probably a better way of doing it. When I >created
> the example, I debated whether or not to list >different types of
> gnomes; I decided to go ahead and >do it just to get the idea out
> there instead of >spending time to figure out how the rules for
> >different types of a patented object would work. I'll >work on it.
> There could be problems, however, if >patent holders could make new
> variations on an object >without any oversight; for example, a Points
> Gnome >that costs 5 points but when squeezed gives you 10.
> -Well, variations would require proposals that changed the rule
> defining the type of object. But anything defined in that rule is (C)
> (TM) (R) (PG-13) the society/player that holds the patent.- > >> If
> someone then attempts to infringe on my patent >> with a similar
> product (Pixies, Homonculi) which is >> like Gnomes but has a silly
> hat on, I can sue them, >> which basically amounts to a CFI with
> damages paid >> if it's found in my favor. Now, I'm assuming I'd >>
> have to sue them while the proposal that would make >> Pixies into
> something Gnome-like is still on the >> ballot. That way, instead of
> letting CFIs repeal >> rules, we can let a Lawsuit CFI perma-shelve a
> >> proposal until it's resolved. Although there /would/ >> need to be
> some sort of safeguard against various >> players (Wonko) dropping in
> a prop like that in the >> eleventh hour the day I go away for a few
> days and >> lose the ability to sue eir ass. That is, a >> safeguard
> other than Dave stopping the Clock for >> four days at the end of
> every nweek. Not coming up >> with anything there.- > >The lawsuit
> thing could work; I'll think about it when >I get a chance to work on
> the prop some more. Maybe >players could vote Infringing on a patent
> prop; if the >Infringing votes had a plurality, then a lawsuit would
> >be issued. > -We certainly do need more of a judicial system here.
> The only effect of an illegal action at the moment is that it
> mysteriously didn't happen. I think I might prefer to let it sort of
> happen and then punish the person who did it. Obviously, I don't mean
> we penalize everyone who sends a message to the wrong forum - I'm
> thinking something like the real legal system, where a lot of laws are
> there, but not really enforced, but some crimes are simply too serious
> and real action has to be taken... unless of course the entire jury is
> bribed... on the other hand, writing a rule based on something
> inherently de facto is kind of hard.-

First off, I'm having problems with your in-line comments, 
Baron.  One of us has an email client that isn't formatting 
those cleanly.  Could well be me.

Now...the patent doesn't have to be edited for each new type 
of gnome.  After all, you can just come up with another patent 
that makes use of these things called "gnomes" that exist as a 
result of another patent, without conveying any of the 
technology associated with the original other 
words, if you're selling marshmallows, you should probably see 
no problem with someone who wants to invent and patent smores, 
since e'll have to get eir marshmallows from you.

Granted, this might well result in a shitload of patents.  But 
since it's all text, and it'd have to be added to the single 
patent or the ruleset anyway, is that really a problem?


The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.

spoon-discuss mailing list