Re: intellectual property and UT's approach

[msimon@xxxxxxxxxx (M. Simon)]

Ownership is not evil. It is a natural right (OK so I'm a Libertarian).

My point is sometimes you can make more money by giving everything away.

When FORTH has no backing, only by making our technology completely open
will confidence be inspired. 

If this technology takes off as I wish to see it there will not be
enough experienced people to service the demand. Linus is doing OK.

Simon
======================================
>Mr. Rideau--check your assumptions.  Jeff
>and Chuck sure do value
>their property as far as I can tell
>from my email conversations with Jeff.
>
>I do not consider ownership evil, whether
>it is ownership of complete consumer appliances,
>software or hardware subcomponents,
>software tools marketed to engineers,
>or complete software/hardware tools marketed to engineers.  How does Mr.
>Rideau suggest
>everyone should benefit
>from someone elses work? By a prearranged payment
>from only one person or company for
>releasing work into the public domain?  Sounds like
>a tough deal to negotiate for near what it is worth...
>especially since property like that grows in value with time.  I like the
>idea of releasing some, not all building block pieces of work to the
>public after being paid for them
>by early adopters.  I like parts of the Gnu Public License, but I have not
>read it all yet...
>
>From conversing with Jeff, I doubt he is interested
>in "safe" work.  He and Chuck seem interested in he
>highest possible personal productivity, and cannot
>see spending time on old stuff.  That the MuP21 does
>not work as is much better than a gate array version
>means nothing because the speed is DRAM limited.  Jeff's going for the ultra
>performance possible when
>a FRAM is integrated on chip!  He doesn't want no stinking FPGA's!  He seems
>to want to trade a specific
>product design, (all the way to debugged),
>for capability to take the low fat
>concept further.
>
>Promoting old stuff may be where
>list members can contribute, and old stuff can easily be public domain when
>it has not sold big, or sales
>are down since it was new.
>
>JG Austin TX
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:fare@tunes.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 6:18 PM
>snip>
>
>value of a company
>is not in its intellectual property (EVIL),
>.
>.
>system integrators who *use*
>embedded processors: *they* are the ones who would benefit from a
>business model without intellectual property. It would provide them
>with security against makers of proprietary chips.
>.
>.
>although I do appreciate
>Chuck Moore's work on optimizing processes by challenging specs
>and using parts beyond "safe", well-charted, linear digital behavior areas,
>why not just publishing "slow" parts that share the same logical behavior,
>but staying within specs, and taking advantage of standard
>(and perhaps faster) processes?
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: M. Simon [mailto:msimon@tefbbs.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Grateful Dead Marketing
>
>IBM vs Linux.
>
>I think the only way FORTH will succeed is to give it all away.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: M. Simon [mailto:msimon@tefbbs.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 7:36 AM
>
>Businessmen love having
>a fallback position. Ask Jeff.
>
>Even though DYOP is ten year old technology, if it can be made popular
>we may get the business community to look at the newer stuff.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Lowry [mailto:lowry@htc.honeywell.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 1:08 PM
>
> He [Ting]has written, in Verilog and VHDL, a 16 bit
>"clone".  At present, it's just the CPU, no video.
>
>I have synthesized the VHDL version, and run it in a
>Xilinx gate array at about 25 MHz.  This is not too
>terribly far from the real-world performance of the x21
>chips running out of DRAM.  Plus, the chip seems to
>perform much more reliably than MuP21.
>
>
Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.htm