RSSHere the final note on the "BristleBots" we've been covering here - Lenore from Evil Mad Scientist writes -
Pat Murphy of Klutz will be sending out a note shortly to let everyone know that Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories will be receiving acknowledgment in the next printing of Invasion of the BristleBots as well as on the Klutz website. This is good news for us, and it seems like Klutz is really learning from this experience about how to work with the maker community. The online response to this situation has been overwhelming and I am glad that such an incredibly vibrant discussion was able to take place. I am truly impressed by and grateful for the support we have received.
I still find it odd that they claim both were developed in parallel... Mind you it's still very possible and plausible.
Anyways, I'm glad they are getting recognition. Also, I hope this sets a record to collaborate with the makers. I'm really impressed by how big a boom the maker community was able to create. Nicely done!
Reply to this comment
Now if only I can get Klutz to credit me with the discovery of juggling...hmmm
Reply to this comment
@paolo-
If I watch you, and emulate you, we are developing in paralell? Or is that too simple?
Play on words, indeed, but what is the meaning of 'is' anyway.....
This has been GREAT to watch unfold. Thanks PT!
Reply to this comment
PT,
All I can say is you Make: Sense!
Nice ride.
Reply to this comment
It is time to BristleBot my teeth and go to bed....
Reply to this comment
So that first response claiming Scholastic developed the concept in 'Early 2007', that was just a bald faced lie? No surprise, but whoever decided that the right way to handle a crisis was to start lying in public still needs to be fired. Scholastic has a LOT of explaining left to do. It's not quite over yet.
Reply to this comment
Lovely to hear it has worked itself out nicely.
Reply to this comment
I love Klutz, I've had a number of their books over the years, and I think they really do enrich the lives of children. They should give credit where it's due, certainly. But should they be afraid of sharing a great idea with kids because of the potential fallout? Should they learn to ignore the maker community because of how fiercely we guard our ideas as if they were property?
Had I been from EMSL I would have rejoiced at the thought that this idea had been spread to inumerable children that my website would never reach. What if this had gone another way and the book had simply been discontinued to avoid legal trouble? As often as people get sued for less I wouldn't have been surprised by this outcome.
What if the idea had been silenced because of the false notion that spreading our ideas costs us something?
I'm glad it wasn't.
Reply to this comment
So, the moral of the story (according to M) is that we should all learn to "shut up and take it" when a bigger bully comes along and steals from us if the end result benefits others. Apparently, EMSL should "know their place" and just be happy for the crumbs bigger companies like Kultz deign to leave for them...
What you're missing, M, is that most of the people making noise about the issue have no connection with EMSL. They were just people who were offended at the idea of Klutz using the idea and lying about originating the idea. No one was talking about Klutz owing EMSL any money, they were just mad that Klutz didn't give any recognition of where they got the idea. As for the issue of what does, or does not, get spread to the children, perhaps many of us think that the idea of properly attributing credit to your souces is a more important thing to teach children (by example) than a simple project like blistlebots.
Reply to this comment