<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Rick Hornsby <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richardjhornsby@gmail.com" target="_blank">richardjhornsby@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br></span>Before we unleash fully automated FBW cars onto our roads, is it<br>
possible to balance intellectual property rights - a person or company's<br>
investment in software - with open, audit-able, and standards-based<br>
conformance in these mission critical applications?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the more relevant question is, should a company be allowed to apply intellectual property rights to something like a car's adaptive steering algorithm, traction control, collision avoidance braking and steering? I guess the answer is "yes" in light of the fact that car companies have been touting their cars' safety records for years.</div><div><br></div><div>My open source side says all safety enhancements should be openly published and freely shared for the betterment of mankind. My closed source side says I should protect and market my safety advantage to the betterment of my shareholders. My humanist side says competitive advantages in safety should be open source while competitive advantages in economy and performance should be closed source. Is there a middle ground to be agreed upon?</div></div></div></div>