Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! (Read 105836 times)

"Running for your life and then doing nothing about it for 37 years is a strange definition of "property held"."

Be fair - Armenians, Palestinians and Greeks have been clamouring to get back home from the day they were expelled.  And there is no question of arbitration.  The Turks and Israelis have the land and will not be negotiating anytime soon.  But that is not the victims fault so don't accuse them of "doing nothing."

What I am trying to illustrate is the nature of ownership.  Some are posting here like private property and ownership are some kind of ethereal creations that have existed since before men walked the Earth while intellectual property is a violent imposition.  Whereas, looking at real ownership, you can see property of any kind is something that is given to you by the society you are in.  If you agree with this, the question become "Is intellectual property a good idea or a crap idea?" not "Is intellectual property legitimate?"

Sure not all ideas have equal value, is it plausible to have two stages, the first where we create tools to formulate ideas based on perceived value, this is up all the way up until a product/service is realized. Then the when released into the market their use can be accurately measured and compared using the flag attributes and their revenue streams.

This will consist of:-  
Phase I - Idea Tool
•   Users who contribute ideas
•   Users who help evaluate ideas
•   Builders who implement the ideas into apps goods or services

Phase II wallets and Apps
•   Promoters who help disseminate the apps
•   Implementer's who help provide supporting services
•   Apps goods and services
•   Loyalty rewards to users

Phase I, is will determine the share allocation among participants and provide an open environment for the exchange of IP without the fear of exploitation. Once the product/service is launched its revenues can be be programmed to be split as transactions occur. No royalties payable upfront and no costly accounting to determine what this will be. We build models that do this automatically as transactions occur? Because all transactions are transparent and flagged with the relevant triggers this can happen with each coin flip. So only ideas that merge into useful applications are rewarded. The tools that can provide this will be highly sought after.

The more efficiently ecosystems can evolve and integrate their values the greater their propensity for symbiotic relationships making both the individuals and ecosystem derive mutual benefit and strength. The higher the empathy within a system, the lower its entropy will be.

The strategy is based on the following assumption: - When looking to invest it is always more risky to invest on the edge of the ecosystem with more security offered  in their center. The bigger the ecosystem the more secure the center, but the lower potential of return. The risk reward ratio diminishes towards the center. Because cryptocurrencies are programmable, investments can now be made with the individual appetite for risk accurately factored in.  Tools that can mitigate risks will be in high demand, by providing higher then average returns. The tools we are proposing will allow this accurate risk analysis as well as self correcting behavior.

The peripheral interface of ecosystems requires continued inspiration to overcome the ever-changing obstacles encountered. If you not learning you not growing, if you not growing you dying. We want to develop tools to maximise novelty, focus resources to develop the most promising of these ideas and apply them to the system. Monitor their performance and to appropriately disseminate the rewards and study their values to generate further inspiration.

The current models are not transparent and transactions cant be programmed to share dividends on the fly.

The types of "Coins" I'm suggesting would not themselves be redeemable they merely a means to measure the efficiency of the ideas embedded in the products/services, you can only sell your share in a product or service. The flags help others to determine its value/relevance to the the ecosystem, enabling efficient price discovery.
.

One problem that I see is the backing issue isn't really solved by linking coins to intellectual property.  The problem is that those that have an issue wilth Bitcoin's lack of physical backing as an exchange unit are going to have the same issue with IP.  Additionally, different IP has different market values, so coins backed by them wouldn't be fungible all of the time.

Thanks MoonShadow,

Its an idea that has been brewing with me over the December holidays, I know it still needs some work but i think its possible and am looking for some feedback and suggestions to develop it further.

This is an interesting proposal.  Where did you get it?

Can Math Based Currencies Realign Ecosystems with Our Values?

Using math based currencies we now have the ability to create digital models of our economies/ecosystems that can interface with or natural ecosystem to form symbiotic relationships. On an individual level the relationships will be user driven, while on a collective level the ecosystems will influence how the individual relationships evolve.

To achieve this objective lets look at what currency is, currency is an instrument that stores and transmits value.  A currency is a function of confidence (if you have no confidence in it has no value), Put another way we can say, currency it is a mechanism to store and transmit confidence (if we have a $100 we are confident people will exchange goods and services to the value of $100).

Wile money is used to assist us in quantifying our individual values; it remains a means to an end, but is not the end itself.  I.e. $5 might buy you a cup of coffee, but the $5 itself cannot give you the pleasure and nourishment that only the coffee can.  This is important, money is merely a means to measure, compare and exchange our different values.   What is so revolutionary about math based currencies is the accuracy and efficiency with which they can continually measure and transmit the values within the ecosystem. Up to now insight into the flow of money has been limited; it has been like adding drops of water to a glass, where does the drop go? With math based currency we now are able to see the water molecules, we can observe how the drops disperse and circulate in the glass. In this way currency units can be programmed as they coalesce or disseminate based on the ranking of users values. This is revolutionary it will provide the accurate means by which we can measure values and their impact in ecosystems.

While programmable currency offers superior efficiency over all traditional ones, there are still several criticisms that should be addressed.

The main criticisms of math based currencies are: -
•   What backs the coins
•   How many coins are issued
•   How the coins are distributed

We would like to propose a system that addresses the issues above, while at the same time provide us with a protocol to measure the values that underpin the transactions occurring by measuring their impact on the ecosystem.

We would like to propose the use of IP (intellectual property) to back or currency.

Let’s refer to our coins as Trinity Coins for the following reasons.
•   There are only 3 coins issued (the reason for this will become apparent later)
•   The distribution is fractional and hierarchical
•   The value of the coins is backed by the relationship of the nested ideas, their perceived values and their actual value to the ecosystem.  

This is measured by flagging value attributes to ideas, assigning these to transactions that occur in the block chain and then measuring them. By recording and analysing the various flagged attributes it is possible to understand the relationships between individual and collective values and rank them according to their benefit to the ecosystem.

IdeaCoin is an approach to rewarding IP (Intellectual Property) Using math based currencies like BitCoin.
Challenges
1)   How to encourage the sharing of ideas in an open source environment while still rewarding IP.
2)   Lower the barrier to entry into the ecosystems without increasing risk/liability.
3)   Measure the value of ideas, products and services, build models that reflect this fairly and reward the IP accordingly.
4)   Avoid regulation by demonstrating the value in voluntary user driven models that respect, demonstrate and communicate the exchange of user values is more rewarding then those that don’t.

Opportunities
1)   Make tools that let ideas collaborate into concepts.
2)   Crowd fund the concepts into products and services (this is the arena that Kick-starter and Bank to the Future now operate).
3)   Reward ideas based on their downstream application and reflected values by the ecosystem.
4)   By servicing the customer’s needs, we can do what Crowd funding is doing to the banking industry to the patent and copyright industries too.

The BitCoin economy makes this all possible via the block chain DNA. We can build apps to facilitate, capture, track and measure IP in meaningful ways, whatever sacrifices are made can be balanced by increased opportunity.  

How do we do this?
Implement a protocol that attributes flags to transactions in the block chain. Provide tools that allow users who choose to participate, to track selected transactions, by sharing this information with the ecosystem. As long as mutual benefit is derived from the services symbiotic relationships are induced and reinforced. If not, the user will simply opt out.

Proposed Modelling System for Ideas IP
An idea is conceived and captured by a user into the system, others who view the idea, can choose to: -
•   Ignore it and move on to another idea
•   Support It
       o   Add a supporting vote
       o   Offer to contribute
                 Offer supporting idea/ideas, these are in turn voted on, ranking and nesting them in hierarchical order.  
                 A financial contribution
                 Offer to participate with materials or skills
•   Disapprove it
       o   Add a disapproving  vote
       o   Offer reason/reasons for your disapproval e.g. the idea already exists, this can be shown by pointing to a link of the other idea, if disputes arise appeals can be verified by consensus of other users and the time stamp of the block chain.

Each contributing offer is voted on by users whose preceding offers have already been accepted by. I.e. only offers that are going to enhance value will be adopted by others who now have a vested interest to see the idea progress into a product or service.

Once the ides become a product or service, all those who supported it can be rewarded. Those who only voted for it will get an improved rating (I will discuss user ratings in more later). Those who contributed can be offered shares in the resulting revenue according to the value of their contribution (The value of the contributions can be measured in the same way the ideas were, some principled values could be declared at the outset and the values will evolve with the Ideas).

In this way we can build opens source applications and measure the contribution, of individuals who contribute to its realisation. We can assign flags that represent these values to transactions related to the use of these applications, these are tracked, analysed and fed back into the system.

Let’s assume our idea has evolved into an open source software application. It’s a tool on our client’s BTC wallet that allows them to make micro donations to causes that most closely match their values (these values are declared in predetermined user saved profiles). By tracking and studying the relationships of flagged values on the block chain we provide useful reports to both the user and the ecosystem, furthermore we are providing financial support to objectives that match the users values. User’s participation is voluntarily, by adding the app to their wallet they always have the option to choose which profiles if any they want to associate with which transactions. When the user transacts a micro payment is made, a portion is given to support causes that match the user’s values the closest and a portion is paid to the system for providing the service. Both the user and the ecosystem benefit from the interaction and in doing so, they both evolve.

User Ratings
Users can be rated and rewarded according to the accuracy of their voting and success of their ideas or contributions. This will do two things it will improves the quality of the IP generated and in turn strengthen the ecosystem.

How TrinityCoins operate. It's a three part process: -
1.   Whenever a new idea is conceived, 3 “Trinity Coins” are issued. The Issuing.
2.   For each subsequent related idea that is adopted, the coins get split in a weighted manner creating fractions of the three coins, i.e the dividing of the coins.
3.   The final facet is the sharing of the revenue derived from the flagged transactions occurring in the ecosystem. A simple ranking measurement would be to measure the number of transaction that occurs during a heart beat of the block chain, in the case of BTC it is 10 min (I prefer to term it, the flip rate of the coins; ) The value is the number of flagged transactions that occur in a “coin flip” vs the total transactions that occurred. In this way the ranking of various flags is achieved.  We now have a method to divide and distribute pooled transaction fees, ranked by the value of ideas and how they apply to ecosystems (measured by the number of matching Flags that occur in the block chain during a coin flip and how this changes over time). This is important because we now have true backing to our currency. Ideas and their value to the ecosystem are what back our currency. Put another way the Coins real intrinsic value is its ability to recognise, rank and match individual and collective values and ideas/IP.


How Ideas can be weighed and measured.
The genesis idea is enhanced by the adding of supporting ideas that are ranked and nested according to the consensus of other users. Here is a simple example¹: -
A genesis Idea is given the value of one unit and is the principal position. Supporting Ideas are added in tiers. The size of tiers can be self determining based on their subordinate value.  If an idea is dependent on a preceding idea requiring the parent Idea to first be accomplished, then it is subordinate, if not it is a pier and forms part of the same tier. In this way tiers will be self determining and grow in fractal patterns.

To simplify our illustration we will just use a fixed hierarchy, where each new tier consists of an extra idea: -

The first layer will have 1 idea, the second 2 ideas the third layer 3 ideas in typical pyramid fission.

How the coins can be divided
Only 3 TrinityCoins are issued and then divided.
•   The first idea is given 1 coin and is the principal position, the next two separate ideas form a second tier, the next three a third tier and so on
•   The value of the second tier coins is calculated by dividing the coins value in the tier above,  1 ÷  2 = 0.5
The value of the third tier coins is the value of the preceding tier’s coin 0.5 ÷ 3 =0.166666
4th tier is 0.166666 ÷ 4 = 0.04166666
5th tier is 0.04166666 ÷ 4 = 0.0083333333

What’s interesting here is the greater the number of ideas generated the smaller the fractions of the coins become. If the first idea’s value is 1 the sum of all the subsequent divided coins will never exceed 2 ensuring there is always a remainder. The more ideas that are nested the smaller the remainder will become. The remainder is important we shall discuss it later.

How shares in the coins are valued
Although the coins get divided into fractions as described above, the coins remain in the pool.  Instead Shares to the pool are allocated, by rating the applications. Rating is accomplished by measuring the occurrence of transaction flags with each coin flip. In this way we can measure the value of goods or services to the ecosystem based on their value flags in conjunction with the transaction amounts and frequency with which they occur. In the fixed tier hierarchy the most valued entity will get 3.333% the second tiered applications will get 16.667%, third tier 5.556%, fourth tired 1.389%, and the fifth 0.278%. We immediately notice how steeply the decline in shares occurs as the tiers get lower. This is because a fixed hierarchy was used. If we allow tier sizes to be self determining based on their subordinate value. E.g. a computer cannot operate without power; therefore it is subordinate to power. We can potentially have multiple stand alone primary first tier apps. The reward motive will encourage new useful stand alone goods and services. When you compute the shares of the pool you will notice, the greater the number of nodes on any given tier the more even the share distribution will be. This is important because it encourages and rewards innovation in a compound way and is anti monopolistic.

The Remainder (3 – the fractions)
The percentage remainder of the sum will be held by the share holders of the product/service. The bigger/healthier the ecosystem/economy gets the less the founding shares holders share becomes. This is a positive consequence, as the ecosystem grows the delegation of responsibility and dilution of shares occurs. The system evolves towards autonomy. From some perspective it could be argued that this is a tendency to artificial intelligence. The decentralised nodes in the network firing off flags could be viewed as the firing of neurons, or the spread of symbiotic relationships could be compared to the growth of mycelia, the flow of coins or currency resembles nutrient flow in living organisms. By looking at flag patterns in relation to the macro evolution of ecosystems could be comparable to an MRI. Because the system is acting in a pier to pier fashion a dynamic fractalised exchange of vales will be occurring between the ecosystem and its inhabitants both benefiting in the process. Seen in this way its possible to imagine that math based currencies are possibly our bridge into the matrix where the communication that takes place between the ecosystem and ourselves, enables us to evolve more rapidly in ways that reflect our values with the ecosystem and what values the ecosystem responds most positively too.

FlagCoins will run on the TrinityCoin engine, their purpose is to allow transactions to be assigned flags, these will provide reference points when data mining the block chain DNA. Ranking engines will use them to establish hierarchical orders.


ValuesCoins are the “Flags” themselves; we are going to ascribe principle values to transactions in the block chain. Like the Jolly Roger, transmitted its vessels philosophy to other ships in the past, Impregnating the block chain with values flags will broadcast the philosophy of transactions and the ecosystems they circulate in. By analysing the influences and relationships they stimulate in our ecosystem, we can measure which values serve us best, both individually and collectively.  

Driven by the TrinityCoins engine of nested hierarchy, IdeaCoins will combine the other two coins to facilitate the collaboration of ideas, flagging them with user values will facilitate their evolution by matching opportunity and creativity. This will result in the symbiotic relationships we discussed earlier. As ecosystems grow so their IP will become more valued. Tools will be developed to articulate customer’s values into the economy and goods and services that best match them will be in highest demand. As the system evolves and values are recognised and met the need for regulation will diminish.

Logic is based in language but our instincts are based on emotions. Like repetition improves muscle memory, impulsive behavior can be reprogrammed. By understanding what triggers of our emotions. Building tools that broadcast values that improve the ecosystem will incentives the correction of negative behavior with reward. Building tools to study flagged transactions will stimulate positive emotional feedback by identifying and matching matching shared positive values. Applying this back into the ecosystem will help improve our individual and collective consciousness and reduce the need for regulation.

I have tried to give a conceptual explanation of how with programmable currency we can use intellectual property, with its matrix of ideas and values to develop a more rewarding and sustainable economy.  

Values through Values
I would now like introduce work by Jerry Schuitema ” Value through Values” the power of giving in creating wealth. The book was published it in 2007, in reaction to the problems he saw with corporate philosophy: - namely, putting the value for shareholders above the value of customers. His arguments were vindicated a year later.  Unfortunately the situation has not improved much but I am hoping with the invention of BitCoin we can change this.

The book focuses on the relationship between transactions and values; there is a goldmine of conceptual models backed by filed studies and workshops. These models can be applied to the analytically tools that mine the block chain DNA. All we need to do is build the engine and the tools based on these models. Despite being written over 5 years ago its lessons and applications are more relevant today.  Raymond Ackerman had this to say about the book:- “The way of the future, the whisper of tomorrow, this is what business colleges should be teaching …This pioneering work is not only timely but deserves to be read and studied by leaders and students in the years ahead”

Having spent over 25 years in economics communication, Jerry has consulted with leading corporations in South Africa; he has studied Economics, History and Political Science at a tertiary level, and management at the Oxford Centre for Management Studies.  

I have had the pleasure of knowing Jerry for just over a decade.  Jerry and I have been discussing how his work could be applied to math based currencies. I think the hardest elements have been accomplished, the publishing of his book with examples required modelling tools and the BitCoin protocol. I am looking for assistance in combing the two along similar lines to what we described above. I would be grateful for any support. I have a soft copy of his book together with his permission to share with anyone who is willing to assist.

Communication’s strength is in its developmental abilities, not in its ability to manipulate. Technology will only really serve us to the extent that we stay focused on the primary aim of interaction: the empowerment of the other. - Jerry Schuitema

Although this post relates to this topic, I have posted it as a new thread to make discussion on it less cluttered. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/can-math-based-currencies-realign-ecosystems-with-our-values-424729

If you are UK, you know my tax rate has fallen 5% this year - life is good   Labour hasn't said they would put it back up either...better and better.

I'm guessing you're one of those 'rich' people ... *brings the pitchforks and torches* .. HAI

Can you stop them without the use of government force?

If I spend 10 years designing a widget, can anyone profit from my work as soon as they get their hands on it?

Funny I live in Europe and missed that part...most parties here raise taxes on the poor and the middle class, not the rich.  Which I approve of btw  

Where you live?

Pretty much every Social Democrat party in Europe...

Really?  What party is that?  When did they win an election on that platform?

Really? How come then, that parties with "tax-the-rich" policies often win elections? "Tax-the-rich" is more proven to reduce economic growth than abolition of IP. Voters are often aware of this, but to them reduced social inequality is more valuable than increased personal material wealth.

Here is a quote from Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty:

quite deliberately and expressly, political parties have sacrificed the immediate material welfare of their members in order to prevent, or at least somewhat to retard, the complete industrialization of the country. A more agricultural Switzerland, though poorer, such is the dominant wish of the Swiss people today.




a) Nobody knows what the economic impact will be.

b) This argument is not about the legitimacy of democratic government.

c) see articles:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/NH/2006-11-08-initiatives_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/pirate-party-germany-berlin-election

There is no point.  We have elections where people get to vote on policies and you will notice that no-one who stands for a reduced rate of economic growth wins.  Any policy that ignores the economic impact of changes to IP law or eminent domain is never going to be a winner.

This is almost exactly the point I brought up earlier in this thread, when we were discussing rights, and I was pointing out how their ideas will hit a major snag as soon as we create self-aware artificial intelligence (which will likely be fairly soon).

The day that it will be possible to create full copies of people, including the momentary state of their synapses, IP will literally amount to slavery.

This scenario may be a "fantasy world" case against IP, but it certainly is a future possibility and it doesn't violate any known laws of our universe.

Rights should be universal. They should hold for all humans independent of place and time, present, past of future.

Define poverty.

My cat is worth more to me than almost any amount of money in the world. If someone took away my cat and gave me $1M in compensation, I would still consider myself a poorer person than before.

A system based on voluntary exchange is guaranteed to maximize the total utility in society.

A voluntary exchange between two people can only take place if it makes BOTH parties better off.  

A non-voluntary exchange (such as eminent domain) always makes at least one party worse off  (from their subjective perspective).

A system based on non-voluntary exchange is not guaranteed to maximize the total utility in society.



In practice, railways would probably still be built in a world without eminent domain (this is a huge topic that I won't go into here).

In practice, people would still create information goods in a world without IP.  There are other ways to make money from information  than forced monopolies.

Information goods are a type of public good in that they are characterized by nonexcludability and non-rivalrous consumption, once the creator has chosen to divulge them.

A much discussed example of a public good are lighthouses. The interesting thing about lighthouses is that they used to be built by private entrepreneurs, and run profitably, even before government started running them.

How did lighthouse operators deal with the free riders? They didn't. They just accepted that a certain amount of freeridership would be unavoidable, and that with the right business model, profits could be made nontheless.

Actually, free riders plague all value creation, not just information goods.  When a carmaker sells me a car, there is nothing the carmaker can do to prevent me from lending the car to my mother on weekends, thus causing her not to buy her own car.

chickenado - your philosophy is all well and good if you think poverty is tolerable.  Most people don't think that way.  Intellectual property and eminent domain are indeed pointless if you don't care about poverty.  But as I said, most people don't think that way...poverty is something we want to alleviate.

Working well for whom?

Patent law is such a byzantine mess that high tech companies have taken it as a given that they will always be breaking some patent or another.  They don't even bother to comply with the law anymore, and instead adopt a reactive strategy. It's all about damage control and not good faith.  Patent disputes are usually settled in private and rarely taken to court. Nobody, not even the judges, have a clue where the limits of patentability lie.  This is likely to result in court battles that drag on for years.

A system where most parties are criminals by default, where rules are not clearly defined, where bullies and gamers are favored over honest people, sounds like a broken system to me.

Of course IP works extremely well for some people.

You know, the Chinese high speed rail network also works very well indeed.  It gives millions of Chinese people unprecedented mobility and has resulted in some positive economic effects, no doubt.

But to build that network, the rights of a minority were trampled upon.  People had their rightful property taken away by force.  You are probably going to say that this is ok because "society has decided" (double speak for "alpha male has decided") that the rail network is more valuable than the rights of those people.

This is where we differ. I am not a utilitarian like you. The most magnificent high speed rail network in the world cannot be justified if it violates the rights of just ONE human being. Evil cannot be quantified. Everybody is equal under the law. No exceptions.

Imagine if you are that guy in China who spent his whole life building his dream house and then it was demolished against his will because the rail line is "good for society".

The difference between you and me is that you have the arrogance to decide for that guy how much the house was worth to him.   I believe that only HE can know that.