[p2p-research] Building Alliances (invention vs. innovation)

J. Andrew Rogers reality.miner at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 18:41:18 CET 2009

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Paul D. Fernhout
<pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> But, can people walk out the door and keep working on the code? To anyone
> who cares about their work, that is an important issue.

We voluntarily agreed to enter contracts with other parties where this
probably would not be allowable, so it is not terribly relevant.

> Likewise, any system where the capital is concentrated, and lots of legal
> agreements are in place, is going to have other aspects to the dynamics.
> Ideally, those are out of the way, but they are still there, and affect
> issues of direction and application, even unconsciously, as people
> self-censor.

Not terribly important as a practical matter.

>> You are not understanding the problem. Like I said, it is a real
>> theoretical problem and it has not been solved.
> Often solutions to long standing problems come from unexpected directions.

Yes, but irrelevant. You provided "evidence" of a solution that in fact was not.

> Quantum hardware? :-)

Quantum hardware obeys standard mathematics. It is not magical. Try again.

> Really, you hire a great researcher. How are you going to know he or she is
> producing the best results they can? How do you know they are not holding
> back some great idea for development next year after they leave the company?

I don't, and I don't really care.  The key is finding people who like
doing that kind of research for its own sake, even if they may not
like all the slog of turning into something useful.

> What happens at work if tomorrow you suddenly see some great new approach
> that might help explain one of these problems if you worked on it some more?
> Can you work on it?
>  http://www.claymath.org/millennium/

Pure math is not that interesting to me personally.

J. Andrew Rogers

More information about the p2presearch mailing list