Re: poly: Idea Futures, some questions

Robin wrote:

> Nick B. wrote on 6/9/98:
> >As I said, if someone copies all the ideas in a patent application
> >(e.g. a mechanism that would give workable cold fusion), than it will
> >be much easier to prove that theft has taken place than if you just
> >steal one bit of information ("Cold fusion doesn't work")
>
> I find it hard to believe that this sort of threat is actually a
> substantial componenet of current deterrence to stealing patentable
> ideas.

Intuitively: if you are a researcher in a cold fusion project, and
your group makes a design for a new reactor, you would hardly run
off and set up a company and build that reactor for your own profit,
if you had signed a contract with the research group that all results
and ideas belonged to the group. (Even if you hadn't signed any
contract, it would still be a major venture for you to assemble
capital and expertise etc.)

On the other hand, if all you had to do were to anonymously buy some
idea futures, or tip off a friend while playing golf, the risk of
detection seems *much* smaller and the operation would also be much
easier to carry out.

> But it turned out to be crucial, one could consider requiring
> idea futures market participants to similarly have detailed documentation
> of their reasoning for making the trades they do.

That doesn't sounds *extremely* implausible. Pick any stock, and I'm
sure I could easily cook up a justification for buying it. Would the
law require that your justification was *valid* -- if you can't
*prove* to the authorities that IBM is likely to rise next year,
you'll go to jail if you invest in them?

_____________________________________________________
Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics
n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
http://www.hedweb.com/nickb
Received on Thu Jun 25 21:01:12 1998