Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- From: Gordon McComb <NOSPAMgmccomb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:21:10 -0700
Brent S. wrote:
> > Unless they changed the rules from last year, contenstants KEEP all IP
> > rights. It would be seriously stupid to do otherwise, as the technology
> > behind a fully autonomous outdoor vehicle is worth billions.
> > However, this doesn't prevent the government from making a contract with
> > anyone, not just the winner, at fair market prices. I'm not even sure
> > DARPA gets first dibs, though the government always reserves the right
> > to commandeer technology out of the national interest.
> >
>
> Sorry. I thought I might be wrong, but I didn't want to bother checking
> through all the fine print, so I assumed Mr. Dumse was right.
The wording is basically the same as it was last year:
"DARPA claims no intellectual property (IP) rights from entrants..." and
they go on to say that includes the winner. They disclaim any right to
trade secrets, patents, copyrights, etc.
I re-read Randy's comments (he's a good guy, give him a break! <g>) and
it does look like he suggests otherwise, but I realize there are other
things than assigning formal IP rights. For example, DARPA can see
what's possible, glean enough non-proprietary information from the
contestants, then go to their favorite defense contractor and say, "See,
it *can* be done! Now get to work!!"
Will they do that? Doubtful. It's cheaper just to buy the technology
they want, since the gobment can set the value if they deem the
technology critical to national interests. I think the Grand Challenge
is more about a fishing expedition where you find the fish, but don't
take any out just yet. But you know where the catch is, and that's the
secret to good fishin'. Before this who knew where the next
breakthroughs in AV's would come from. A Volkswagon??
While I'm not keen on developing yet another way to kill a human being,
I also recognize the potential in SAVING lives, and this is where a
whole cottage industry can crop up. Like the deer/moose thing (one
respondant was absolutely correct -- hit a moose at 50-60 MPH, and you
better have your will made out). Since the AVs in the Grand Challenge
route are basically a Hummer-full of sensors, who can say what else
those sensors might do, apart from driving a vehicle into a desert one
night so it can fire a gattling gun at some people it suspects are
terrorists? (In which case fire away, but what if they're not...)
I prefer not to think about the possible misuse of this technology, and
concentrate on the positive ones. The fact that DARPA has a budget to
fund these things is, well, a fact of life. Our Apollo missions weren't
all about bringing back some moon rocks, after all. The US government
has never been altruistic, depsite what we may want to think.
-- Gordon
.
- References:
- Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- From: Randy M. Dumse
- Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- From: Brent S.
- Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- From: Gordon McComb
- Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- From: Brent S.
- Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- Prev by Date: Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- Next by Date: Re: robot skin
- Previous by thread: Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- Next by thread: Re: Huh? DAPRA GC was not a good thing?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
