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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 09:29 PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> > 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?-

That means the rules have to be changed quite often. Glotmorf's  2GCs 
were well-suited to this sort of thing; if a keywording system were 
implemented on such documents, it'd be easy to see all gnomes together; 
perhaps a similar system could mark various object definitions as being 
known by certain entities, so you could see the list of everyone who 
knew the Secret of Fire, view a list of every tech known to the Guild 
of Gnomesmiths, etc.

Perhaps in order to regulate mad Patenting, there should be some cost 
associated with making a Patent Prop - say, you need to spend 10 
Research points or something in order to make such a prop (<plug> and 
under my protoproposal, that's really easy to do: "Patent props have a 
prop cost of 1 bandwidth and 10 Research" </plug>).


> > 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.-

Your ministry only handled what gnomes people had; Dave still had to 
deal with gnomes being thrown everywhere, and with all the consequences 
of what you seem to be suggesting, namely a lot of patent transactions 
and, basically, an economy.

--
Wonko

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