[topicmaps-comment] FW: IP trust discussion

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

This is relevant to the Topic Maps comment forum, for reasons that I have
exposed in the past to the TM community.

Basically, can the knowledge representation community effort ever be
successful as a standardization process that is controlled by reductionism
and commercialism?

The principled argument is that non-machine addressable subjects are not
reducible, and human knowledge itself is an non-machine addressable subject.
My work on categorical abstraction indicates how one might build semiotic
systems that properly account for the required distinction between computer
addressable subjects and non-computer addressable subjects.  My work is
Peircean and Wittgenstian in nature.

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm

http://www.ontologystream.com/cA/index.htm

The solution is suggested that the best one can do with a computer is to
creat semiotic type language systems that are processed by the computer but
interpreted by members of human communities.  This type of "synthetic
intelligence" is what I have proposed as a National Cyber Defense Knowledge
Base that uses categorical Abstraction (cA).


***

Some of us should have a discussion about the Charter of the BCNGroup.

http://www.bcngroup.org

And we may have an open discussion, with a small group, about the nature of
the OntologyStream Inc. Capitalization Plan:

http://www.ontologystream.com/OSIConsulting/OSICapitalizationPlan.htm

You see, it is not about doing business or selling oneself; but about doing
science.

I am trying to get this right.. and then to find a way to make the Plan
legal... because there are many of my father's art collectors who are
wealthy oil men and they will "trust" me with this if I can get the thing
settled right..(By this, I mean if the Plan is in agreement with the science
principles and the BCNGroup Charter).  I know that if I can have ten parts
of this Plan to sell at $50K each, then I can do this... and do it my way.
But the Plan and the offer has to be legal.. this is all I need  .........
**** not political advise ****   I already know the political advice,
(smile).

The copy below is a conversation between myself and a colleague for whom I
have great respect; but I know that he is wrong.

He is not wrong for himself, or for others; but he is wrong to **insist** on
the notion that I cannot be successful with selling this Capitalization
Plan - once I get it legal.  He simply can not take the position of knowing
the future, in this way.  Yes?

I question why he would be so insistent on his being right, and to not allow
any doubt that his view is absolutely correct...

But I understand his behavior and cognitive state using, my sense of the
general systems properties that are involved in the issues.  I understand
that this has nothing to do with me, or with my friend.  It has everything
to do with why information and cognitive science is so screwed up today.

Dr. Szu, this is the issue we have talked about last week.  How can the
science community take control over a funding and control process that has
gone terribly right?  Paul (W.) your comments?  National Science Foundation
is a big part of the cause of the problem of reductionism in Information
Science, and in science in general.

My proposal is that the situation with capitalists and innovators can be
flipped if the innovators ban together in the way that the Charter of the
BCNGroup envisions.

I have made up a story where a well qualified venture capitalist and an
eminent innovator are to meet for the first time.  The capitalist knows only
that the innovator is a first rate innovator.  The innovator knows only that
the capitalist is a first rate capitalist.  They enter the room with a
single elegant table and no chairs.  What do they say to each other?

Dick Ballard has made some private remarks on this, which I am sure he will
share with us.



OSI is in a position to flip the expectation that the capitalist has a
higher status than the innovator.  We are to do this by creating and
declaring patents in a new algorithmic space.

On the face of it there is no rational argument that the capitalist must
have the higher social status.  It is true that this is the way the current
system is. But one may also understand the sucess and failure of Knowledge
Managment, of Business Process Re-engineering. One may understand the
unrealitic and improper promise of the AI Dream.


-Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: paul [mailto:beadmaster@ontologystream.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 8:08 PM
To:
Subject: RE: IP trust


Q,

Well written!

I have read with an understanding of the issue and you experience with this
issue.

Thank you very much for taking the time to develop this viewpoint.

At least, OSI will have the uniqueness to move against the trend.  I want
this statement to be very very clear.  It is a principled argument that
investment is not always done properly IF all one is really seeking is
profit.

I feel that it is a sizable return on invest that OSI, and the BCNGroup, is
offering to an angel, not something to do with their ego, and certainly not
controlling interference with what we as scientists need to do.

Your note really tells me that I have been successful in making the three
points:

1) investment should be about the money, and if the investors are not
willing to spend the time to think, then I personally do not what to
interact with them.

2) investment should not be about the ego of the investor, as this just
screws things up.

3) if the investor wants a management role, then there is no reason why this
should not be considered a separate issue.


Again thank you for your comment, it helps me see that I am clear to my
purpose.

I am dedicated to my path, and have this right, of course.





-----Original Message-----
From: Q
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:14 PM
To: 'paul'
Subject: RE: IP trust


Paul:

Investors are an interesting lot.  And unless the angel you are finding
is a truly good and benevolent friend, idea one to remember is that
investors believe they are doing you a favor.  That is, they believe,
and partly rightly so, that you need them more than they need you.

The second thing you need to realize is that people with money have a
multitude of options for where they can put their money because they are
constantly being approached with ideas (a close relative to the idea
that they don't need you).

There is a fine line you therefore have to walk when approaching
investors.  You must:
1) Capture their imagination.
2) Stroke their egos.
3) Let them have some sense of control over what happens to their money.

The way this document is written, you've barely given them #1.  First
off, you don't need to mention the "Blue Sky Laws" in the text of your
document.  You need to make the case for why your business will succeed.
This is the "capture the imagination" piece.  Stating that people will
make an x% return in 5-10 years is just not a credible way to capture
imagination.  Everyone makes those promises.

Your insistence that they stay out of the business and let you run it
destroys #3 outright.  If I'm giving you $500K and you fail as a
business (a 90-95% likelihood), unless I'm just ready to walk away from
it because I trust you so much, no way.

Finally, the whole document does nothing for the #2 piece.  This
document comes off as: You all give me money and stay out of our way and
we will make you a fortune.  Well, I'm the guy with the money, I found a
way to make money, you are looking to me to take my money, you have no
proven track record of making money (and if I'm a little bit saavy, I'm
doing a credit check on you -- what will I find out?).  So how can you
be telling me to "butt out" once I give you the money.

So you need to get back to business basics with this document.  You need
to indicate "what your business is".  And it can't be 10 things.  It
must be one thing.  No one invests $500K because someone has many
different ways to make money.  Then you need to talk about your
marketing and selling of the concept.  How does the marketplace work for
what you are doing?  How will revenue be generated?  Who is the buyer of
your goods and services?  How long does it take to convince someone to
buy?  All these questions will be asked by a saavy investor.

There are many more such questions that need to be answered.  I suggest
you look at some web sites about business planning to get an idea of the
kinds of things you will need to answer from an investor before they
hand over dollars to you.

And remember, finding money is partly about you, mostly about the
investor.  You must think from their perspective, not from what you
need.