Glotmorf on 7 Oct 2003 04:10:59 -0000

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

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

On 6 Oct 2003 at 22:58, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> >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.
> -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.-

If we have patents that reference patents, that *is* an 
overarching class structure.  Or are you now talking about a 
class structure as an element of the rules, and patents as 
possessable objects?  In which case, there'd still be a patent 
for every silly little concept, otherwise the original 
patentholder would get more power from an ever-growing class.

I, for example, might want to independently develop the 88mm 
recoilless gnomitzer.  You can keep the patent on gnomes.  My 
patent on the steel jacketed ammo would just reference gnomes 
as an ingredient. (Forget the funny hat.  Ever see a gnome in 
a steel jacket?)


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

spoon-discuss mailing list