Private ownership of mineable asteroids moved into Earth orbit

[shynung]

Shynung... how can you answering me a reply that was for someone else, if you dont understand why I did that reply? You need to read my previous post to understand why I reply that.. So if you want to reply me, then reply my previous post, which is the one that tanter dint understand.

It's a clarification. It's not meant to be a direct reply, since you seemed to either misunderstood the definitions of 'ideas' and 'resources', and user tater didn't attempt to clarify further.

^{And yes, I do this a lot. Some to you, some to others. You shouldn't be surprised by now.}

Edited July 28, 2015 by shynung

[tater]

It's a clarification. It's not meant to be a direct reply, since you seemed to either misunderstood the definitions of 'ideas' and 'resources', and user tater didn't attempt to clarify further.

^{And yes, I do this a lot. Some to you, some to others. You shouldn't be surprised by now.}

And here I am, directly replying to a post meant for another! Burn me, I'm a witch!

I assumed that anyone bringing up patents in an argument would understand that they are talking about the legal status of ideas, and that something with physicality, explicitly gathered for use as resources is, well, you know, a resource. Silly me.

To the extent the law needs to progress in this area, I can only assume that it will tend in the direction that provides incentive for such resource collection. It's interesting to actually consider if any law on earth applies at all, frankly. If someone were to build an O'Neil colony, and earth said that they couldn't own a rock they used for metals, their proper answer would be to laugh, IMO.

Any agreements made between powers on earth in this regard is a treaty between powers on earth, and would not seem to apply to anyone else. The UN is already a joke, and any "law" coming from them has no enforcement mechanism. Functionally, you'd have to have some country complain, then try and take it out in tangential trade law, I think: 3d world country A that mines some rare earth is POed that a US/EU company mines the same rare earth metal on an asteroid. That company's home country doesn't care what country A says. Country A adds some tariff on imports from the space-fairing country to protest, that becomes a legal issue.

That seems like a more likely route (any lawyers here have more realistic ideas about this?).

A buddy of mine is an intellectual property attorney, I know what we'll be discussing Friday over cocktails.

[AngelLestat]

In such a forum, posts that are on-topic (or tangentially related) can (and should) be replied to by anyone. I was more that clear, and really already answered your unnecessary question, but you failed to comprehend it. Intellectual property (patents, for example) are ideas. A rock in space is a resource.

ok, so you was answering just the first line that was less related? But I mention that because is just another example of how sharing can be productive, from ideas, energy, resources, and task/work.

This is an strategy that is starting to rise in many areas, from normal people to companies, etc.

Colonizing other planets or mining asteroids will be very hard.. so in this kind of enviroments is where you most need to take the best strategy you can, is the best way to manage risks..

Also, something that all countries learn from history, that colonize dint work so well, they always lose control, this happen with all empires.

And right now, people change works more often, they also change their home location very often, it can be in other countries or wherever.

So owning things, starts to lose value.. you will lose alot of money and energy if you want to buy houses, furnitudes if probably you will move out few years later.

Once again, you are arguing someone else. I said basically exactly the same thing. He did it for strategic reasons---which are in his self-interest. Or are you claiming it's for strategic reasons that harm Musk/Tesla? To be arguing ME, you must be claiming that Musk's strategic reasons are contrary to his self-interest. Are they? Yes or no?

Do you not understand what "self-interest" means?

ok I apology, when I read "he shared patents out of self-interest", I understand OUT as the opposite.

I also apology to said "But I search it to show you how wrong you are.", I wanted to edit it to "if you dont understand my explanation, maybe they can help:"

I was editing, by my internet connection fall heh Sorry.

[Vanamonde]

This thread has wandered far from the topic and into politics and personal animosities. Time to move on to other discussions, please.