Dear Ed and Peter,
Comments below,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at
12:29 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011
at 12:06 PM, Ed - 0x1b, Inc. <ontolog@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18,
2011 at 11:55 AM, Rich Cooper
>> <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>> Dear Peter,
>>>
>>> Agreed re
the FTF vs FTI. The many inventors I
>>> know are
upset about this new law, and working
>>> hard to
reverse it, so perhaps that will be
>>> changed.
But it will take years.
>>
>> is there an
ontology of politicos that are on our side or otherwise
>> enemies of
invention? is there a tool to work against this yet?
>
> [ppy] I don't
know ... but googling "intellectual property ontology"
> came up with a
whopping 703,000 hits.
>
wrong problem - the
problems are the political actors that thought
this was a good idea. If
you want to solve a problem. start to measure
it (according to my old
teacher Peter Drucker)
Is there an ontology that
identifies government offices held by those
that profess this
perspective - I want to give people good reasons not
to support them.
People in congress, in
fact in most of government, are not technologists, by and large. The
patent issue was managed because large companies with lots of intellectual
property saw that other countries were eating their IP lunches. A patent
in the US wasn’t good in the EU, in Asia, Australia, South America, Africa, and
any others you like that I may have left out. The problem was thought
solved (for the large IP holders) through using lobbyists to purchase votes of
elected officials. It was that self interest on the part of large
companies (and contrary to perceived self interest of small inventors who make
the bulk of startup companies work) that led to the belief that world patent
standards (the WIPO) would fix the problem (but just for big IP holders, to the
detriment of inventors).
Since ontology is likely
to be populated by small companies in the near future, with large companies
gobbling up the markets since there is less patent protection for the small
companies, it is unlikely to develop at the pace or with the depth of
technology we have seen in the last five decades of the computer
revolution.
<rant>
It doesn't matter how
complex the system, how much invested capital,
or the size of a project
- it takes a person to be unethical. The
problem is always one or
more people. They must go before you can
start to fix things.
</rant>
I don’t want the people
to go; I want them empowered to add value to semantic engineering.
with any luck semantic
patents will get ruled a fraud - but I doubt it.
I certainly hope
not. The problem is that there is not enough progress in semantic
patents, and the speed of the future is now slower than it was before the AIA was
passed.
But I don’t think that
makes the large IP holders unethical; they are just self interested like all
the rest of us. The issue isn’t one of ethical behavior, but of what
works best economically for the vast majority of citizens. What helps the
economy is what is best. And that is NOT the AIA with FTF replacing
FTI. It only protects the big guys at the expense of the seed corn.
-Rich