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

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

>> >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?)
>> >
>> -That's very strange... basically, I'm trying to
>> avoid this having been a possibility:
>> 
>> vSOI patents:
>> Gnomes
>> Fire Gnomes
>> Water Gnomes
>> Earth Gnomes
>> Air Gnomes
>> Grain Gnomes
>> Beer Gnomes
>> Summer Gnomes
>> Winter Gnomes
>> Yoyo Gnomes
>> Grape Gnomes
>> Wine Gnomes
>> Champagne Gnomes
>> ...
>> Ford Prefect Gnomes
>> PGGB Gnomes
>> Airspeeders
>> 
>> There were 34 kinds of Gnomes. Tell me that there
>> wouldn't have had to be a list of 3 dozen patents
>> with text somewhere when one rule worked just fine,
>> and I'll go with your system. What I'm advocating,
>> though, looks more like this:
>> 
>> vSOI patents:
>> Gnomes
>> Airspeeders
>> 
>> WBE patents:
>> 88mm recoilless Gnomitizer
>
>Gnomitzer, not gnomitizer.  As in howitzer, but it
>shoots gnomes instead of hows.

-I got hung up on "recoilless." Leeme'lone.-
>
>> Vertical Boosters
>> Cargo Bays
>> ...
>> 
>> Now, WBE speeder upgrades, by and large, would not
>> be easily compressed into one little subsection,
>> unless that was "speeder upgrades," which is too
>> monopolistic. But Gnomes are Gnomes.
>
>That's just it...gnomes aren't gnomes.  If you're
>trying to bring back all the gnomes there were on the
>old grid, that's, as you say, 34 different kinds of
>gnomes.  You want a patent on the basic gnome because
>you invented it, fine.  You want a patent on the
>champagne gnome because you invented it, and it uses a
>basic gnome and a glass of champagne, fine.  But if I
>invent the sparkling creamy jello gnome that uses as
>its ingredients a basic gnome, a champagne gnome and a
>chocolate eclair, I want the patent to that.

-What if they were defined in the rules, and in the rule that defined them, a little blurb was added stating who held the patent?-
>
>Okay, so maybe all the gnomes can be kept in the same
>rule, and the references to the patents just be
>entries on the roster.  But at one point we seriously
>considered a class system that was a game document
>outside the rules, so that the details of a given
>object weren't buried in the midst of a 100-page
>ruleset.  Something separate, sortable, indexable,
>etc.  I'd thought that these patents could be related
>to the class system, but if we're talking about
>transferring and sharing patents I guess that wouldn't
>really work.  However, I still suggest the class
>system be separate from (if acknowledged by) the
>rules.
>
>> Just don't give Dave lots and lots of extraneous
>> work, that's all I'm saying.-
>
>As compared to reinventing an in-game production and
>commerce system? :)
>
-As I recall, we had a Ministry to help some there. As I recall, it was my ministry. So yes, as opposed to recreating said system.-

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