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

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> >> -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.


-I think it's you. I added some hard returns to make these a little easier to read...-


>
>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 patent...in 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.


-Yeah, but it's just easier to keep it all in one place than to have a patent for every silly little concept. And overarching classes of objects will keep things tidier.-


>
>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?
>
>

-Depends. Do you /like/ wading through hundreds of pages of extraneous text? No? Then don't read the rules... seriously, though, I repeat my pro-class statements.-


[[BvS]]
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss