tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post676797676168608743..comments2024-03-26T19:10:00.791-04:00Comments on West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more): Intellectual property: the story that never endsJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-56188474000934179382011-12-21T23:20:52.901-05:002011-12-21T23:20:52.901-05:00@Joseph: Agreed. I think that overly restrictive i...@Joseph: Agreed. I think that overly restrictive intellectual property rights might really muck up the evolution of car automation. Still, I have hard time not being excited about the technology.Trevorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508176710042794606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-10252113988512048492011-12-21T14:10:17.183-05:002011-12-21T14:10:17.183-05:00@ Trevor: Perhaps the jetpack analogy is overstate...@ Trevor: Perhaps the jetpack analogy is overstated. <br /><br />However, my primary fear is that aggressive intellectual property squabbles will decrease competition in the driverless cars arena. One consequence of decreased competition could be a slower increase in quality. If the cars have a vastly extended learning curve (because of rival companies holding key patents on the basic design issues) then they may end up being much less safe.<br /><br />This is really the distinction. A patent on the idea of mirrors in a car would have slowed innovation by giving the patent holder a massive market advantage. How does this help accelerate the adoption of the best possible car system?Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-71345551832750032632011-12-21T13:15:36.614-05:002011-12-21T13:15:36.614-05:00I don't think the jet pack analogy is particul...I don't think the jet pack analogy is particularly strong. The appeal of jet packs seems to me to have been based around a sort of technological fetish (people can fly! by themselves!) rather than any real functional needs.<br /><br />Driverless cars, on the other hand, represent probably the most plausible solution to the still enormous problem of traffic deaths. Given the huge, albeit slowly falling, number of people who die on US roads every year, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of these deaths are due in some measure to human error, automation provides an opportunity to dramatically reduce the amount of carnage we accept as the cost of transport. Looking beyond safety features, automation also offers potentially large gains in travel efficiency (e.g. car spacing is no longer limited by human reaction times), car sharing flexibility (you would be able to hail a shared car, which would be able to respond to you and other travelers in an optimized way), a significant increase in productive/recreational hours for long-distance car commuters, etc.<br /><br />Finally, with respect to the small profile of bicyclists and pedestrians, I think this is actually an argument for the benefits of automation. Automated cars will have sensors that far exceed the scope and precision of the human eye, and unlike the human brain, computer processors won't fail to register the presence of a bicyclist in an unexpected setting.Trevorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16508176710042794606noreply@blogger.com