My Proprietary Interest in the Clique Space(TM) Technology.

One can follow this blog from when I started it in July 2009, and clearly observe that I have asserted over and over again, my claim that the Clique Space concept is mine, and that specifically, the term "Clique Space" is a descriptive trademark I am claiming proprietorship of. I have claimed trademark ownership of "Clique Space" at least since I registered the PCT: one will find the name and the TM citation in the document as it was submitted to WIPO. One can observe over the interval, that this blog has been making numerous and repetitive invitations to elicit interest for specific others' support; support which has often (as in the case of Wollongong University) been explicitly turned down.

One can follow this blog from when I started it in July 2009, and clearly observe the open invitation for enquiry by anyone who reads this blog. Hence, although I assert that Clique Space, its concept, and its developed technology is, in its current entirety, an effort wholly undertaken by me, Owen Paul Thomas, a resident of Wollongong, NSW, Australia, I have been trying for at least this same amount of time to garner help from any party anywhere in this world in my proprietary interest; an interest which I believe will pay a great general dividend to those people that respond.

I proclaim that my Clique Space concept will, in time, demonstrate itself to be indispensable in general social interaction. A complex, organised and truly global society, enjoying the fruit that Clique Space yields both in terms of the expression of society and the individuals it is composed of, will identify the degree to which Clique Space demonstrates its efficacy. I believe that the ubiquitous usage of Clique Space will, in times hence, prove that my conception of this Clique Space thing was defining epoch in the evolution of this thing we generally know as society...

These claims may sound grandiose, nay on delusional, but I have been working patiently, steadily, and solitarily on this thing for some time, and if I have delusional tendencies, my psychiatrist - a specialist whom I have known for about as long as this blog has existed - would have prescribed me medication and told me that taking it as directed is perhaps a good idea. He hasn't; he has specifically said that he doesn't think medication is required in my situation.

So, taking my cue from my psychiatrist and generally observing those with whom I share some personal relationship, I assess that I am not in need of intervention; that I am indeed sane and humble enough to create a solution, as robust as it might be elegant, that encapsulates a concept for which I also claim a patent - registered after 3.5 years deliberation in January 2008. I have been working on the implementation of this solution for more than four years since leaving my last employment due to the fact that irreconcilable differences experienced between myself and six employers previously presented themselves as similarly unnavigable in July 2008.

Although my efforts to present my idea have been ignored continually since I conceived the idea in mid-2004, I have persisted with it. I registered a provisional patent in January 2008, and started implementing it in Java SE in July 2008. I use NetBeans as my IDE, SVN for code versioning (provenance) management, on Ubuntu. I thank the fact that these products are completely free because I would not otherwise be able to implement this concept as "effortlessly" as these products allow. However, even with this effortlessness, I didn't think it would take as long as it has so far taken to get to where I am currently. Although the concept itself is very simple, the lack of foreknowledge of the detail of the implementation, and the lack of help and possibly even understanding from others of the help they might have been able to offer, I have persevered alone; I can thus far make my claim to this technology, in its entirety, as exclusively my own.

Hence, this entry is a reiteration of an appeal to interested others to offer their help. The idea is proprietary, and, I am hoping, a product which can be sold. There are certainly legal obstacles to be overcome provided others are willing to play the legal game fairly and offer their help openly. Doing so would also protect their interest should a party, in offering their help, become a stake-holder in this proprietary interest.

Here, I will assert further trademarks. Namely the following:

• The Clique Space Axle or the term "Axle" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
• The Clique Space Agent Device or the term "Agent Device" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
• The Clique Space Client Device or "Client Device" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
• The Clique Space Clique or "Clique" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
• The Clique Space Account Profile or "Account Profile" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.
• The Clique Space Media Profile or "Media Profile" as it would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept. 
• The Clique Space Enabling Constraint or "Enabling Constraint" and the Clique Space Limiting Constraint or "Limiting Constraint" as they would appear in relationship to the discussion of Clique Space or any related concept.

I will assert a similar proprietary interest over the terms Connection, Affiliation, Identity, and Constraint though perhaps I doubt more the ability for this interest to be asserted with clarity because of the general use of these terms.

Primarily, I state this condition of use around all trademarks I have so asserted: I will bare no claim to the terms' usage elsewhere, except where it is evident that the usage of these terms appears to garner interest or revenue in a competing idea - if such an idea that doesn't infringe on my patent could be conceived. I would be respectful, and definitely honoured, if one used these terms in reference to one's own initiatives that would draw on my Clique Space concept as something that these technology vendors have specific intent to use. However, I would certainly anticipate that others who had formed such an intent would definitely have formalised their own business relationship with Clique Space and its technology before they made such statements.

I'm trying hard to be a fair, a good, and a proper man. I hope my efforts in making an open attempt to offer what I have to other people are recognised as being efforts that might come from such a man. I'm really hoping the reader has (you have) a similar intent. Get in contact with me directly (my email is available from clicking my name below the "About Me" details of this blog) if your intents are as sincere as mine.

My patent has evolved through a PCT and is currently in the process of examination in AU, NZ, and US jurisdictions. My code base is currently completely proprietary and closed source however I believe that in the future I would like to see the code released on some general purpose license.

I envisage that the prime business value of any organisation formed around the use of the technology to be a publicly accessible Clique Space - the "Public" Clique Space - that would offer usage to individuals operating as "themselves" free of charge. The Public Clique Space would receive revenue from a type of usage that required another organisation to "federate" its own Clique Space with the Public Clique Space. To this end, I envisage that the Public Clique Space Organisation would be an internationally recognised trading name of the entity set up to execute the administration of the Public Clique Space domain. In terms of Clique Space federations, Clique Space is a highly configurable environment which would allow a degree of fine-grained control unparalleled in any other available technology. Pricing schemes can be set up and levied against this configuration versatility to organisations willing to participate in a federation at whatever level will serve these other organisations' varied needs.

I would not run the Public Clique Space Organisation (I haven't got the required competencies), but I like to think that I'll retain an equity stake in it.

State versus content: Clique Space(TM) as something which might be useful.

Cliques model collaborations. What does this mean?

First, a refresher on the general principle of Clique Space; one that perhaps does not pay respect to the subjects of federation or anonymous or unidentified (un-Identitied) Participants as they apply to Clique Space for the sake of simplicity, but never mind...

A collaboration is some cooperative activity going on between individuals. Each individual has some capacity to act, and uses a particular device capable of participating in this collaboration. The collaboration is going on within one or more particular media, and, when the collaboration is being modelled as a Clique, this collaboration can be observed by others, according to the degree to which these others have constraint affinity with the Clique and each of its member Participants.

Agent Devices are only special in that they are running instances of the Clique Space Agent Device code. Beyond this fact, there's nothing special about Agent Devices. Simply put, Agent Devices form Agent Collaborations, and Clique Spaces can exist in Agent Collaborations. An Agent Collaboration is modelled as a Clique within the Clique Space that exists as a result of an Agent Collaboration. Each Agent Device is controlled by an individual like any other device, and each Agent Device exposes functionality through the same control mechanism as any other device.

Clique Space users (individuals) connect other devices through Agent Devices which are members of a Clique Space to which they want to connect. All the devices one has connected to a Clique Space (including Agent Devices) generate activity in their own device specific way. Changes in device state are siphoned and modelled as activity in a Clique Space. Each connected device lets Clique Space know which other devices it is exchanging information with so the Clique Space can model this collaboration as a Clique. The exchange going on between the external device and the Agent Device to which it is connected is a collaboration like any other: it is modelled as a Clique - called the serving Agent Device's Clique.

For any given Clique, each Agent Device that is managing the direct link to an external device participating in the collaboration that the Clique is a model of, or any Agent Device managing a direct link to a View and/or control mechanism enabled device observing this Clique, becomes a member of an an Agent Collaboration which is modelled as a Clique of its own. The Agent Devices of this collaboration Clique coordinate, cross-reference and model the incoming external device state and interpret and disseminate outgoing device commands so that any user, not necessarily just the participants of the collaboration (Participants of the Clique that models this collaboration), can, if they have sufficient affinity, observe, and interact with the collaboration if a potential observer chose to observe a collaboration through Clique Space.

A given observer might later want to participate in the above collaboration. This given user might have connected a device which permits their participation in the specific collaboration's media as well as expressing to a Clique Space through an Identity, sufficient constraint (Limiting Constraint) affinity to participate in the Clique they are observing. In this case, they may either join this Clique with their given device, or, if possible, activate the given device remotely by sending commands through the Clique Space Agent Collaboration aether. The individual user would probably send these commands using the same Clique Space View enabled device through which they might be observing this Clique.

Necessarily, if the given user wishes to activate one device in a Clique Space mediated collaboration through another device, then this other device must 1. possess a View and/or control mechanism enabled device, and this capability must 2. be exposed through the device's Clique Space Connection, and 3. be expressed (projected) through an Identity which 4. furnishes the individual with this capacity to activate one device through another View and/or control mechanism enabled device.

While one individual may restrict remote device control only to devices expressed through Identities revolving around that individual's Axle (Account), such an individual may cede some remote control authority to other individuals in accordance with the constraint affinity these other individuals may possess with an Identity through which this device is expressed. Other individuals may only remotely control a device possessed by this individual only if, and to the extent that, this individual has permitted this activity to take place.

Now, to my point.

It's fairly straightforward: Clique Space's intended purpose is not to model or control a collaboration beyond those characteristics which determine whether a Participant can exist, or remain in existence in a Clique specific to this collaboration's media, and to the extent that the underlying Identity has sufficient Limiting Constraint affinity with the Clique, or is willing to make compromises (allow a Participant to acquire Limiting Constraints contrary to those of the underlying Identity) to achieve this affinity.

A Clique is not much more than a record of a collaboration; complicated exchange goes on in the specific collaboration's media as it would do regardless of whether any given device was connected to a Clique Space or not. Clique Space's ability to model, and perhaps to control a collaboration leaves the content of the collaborative exchange to the concern of the devices.

Mechanics that compose the various Clique Space collaboration media (the Agent Device as a Clique Space collaborator with a group of Agent Devices modelling a specific Agent Collaboration, or the Agent Device as an engager in a synapse with another Agent Device, or an Agent Device as a member of a Clique Space, or more generally, the Agent Device as a serving Agent Device interlocutor on a specific Clique Space with an another device in accordance to a medium specific to this exchange) are all modelled and controlled in the same abstract way: as a Clique composed of two or more Participants. The mechanics of these collaborations involving Agent Devices have a depth that Clique Space's abstract collaboration model does not penetrate because the relevant Media Profiles do not (cannot) expose all the functionality of the mechanics of these media through Connections generated from these Media Profiles; attempting to do so would introduce infinite regress.

Media Profile manufacturers may choose to represent some proportion of the collaboration's content exchange in Clique Space because doing so might be convenient. This might provide Clique Space users with the opportunity to model, and particularly, to get a Clique Space to automate the control of events on behalf of the devices' operators in accordance to the wishes of these users.

Hence, the value of Clique Space is in its ability to aggregate, model, and control devices in relation to the individual users which use Clique Space to assert their possession of them. Clique Space doesn't exist to provide users with an additional opportunity to participate in the totality of the content of a collaboration's exchange; external devices ordinarily (whether connected to a Clique Space or not) manifest external collaborations where the content exchange takes place in some medium specifically defined by the manufacturer of these devices, and which remains external and largely opaque to Clique Space.

Deliberating constraints once more... and their relevance in each Element

The question of what constraints actually mean in each Element is still unresolved. Currently, the problem appears to exhibit the following solution.

Limiting Constraint "values" are assigned to any Element in accordance to Enabling Constraint "parameters" given in Media Profiles. Each Limiting Constraint appears to be uniquely identified by some concatenation of the Element which contains the Limiting Constraint, the Media Profile which contains the Enabling Constraint, and the parameter within the Enabling Constraint which the given Limiting Constraint describes. It appears that Limiting Constraints only describe a discrete parameter in an Enabling Constraint; hence, one or more Limiting Constraints will be needed to fully describe any given Enabling Constraint.

While any Element can contain Limiting Constraints, the following would appear to be a reasonable convenience for their expression.

Although Media and Account Profiles, the Axle (its still fairly appealing), the Connection and the Affiliation carry Limiting Constraints, these Limiting Constraints do not have to be consistent beyond a necessity that no more than one Limiting Constraint must refer to any Enabling Constraint parameter within any one given Element from this category of Elements.

The Identity however, identifies a coherent set of characteristics of an individual. Therefore, an Identity is a composition of Limiting Constraints set in the category of Elements defined above which is capable of generating Participants which do not internally contradict. Such a self-contradictory Participant would be a paradox not only in the given Participant, but from the Identity from which it was generated. Hence, from a moral perspective in normal discourse away from Clique Space(TM), any individual projecting an identity to others which has a self-contradictory nature would create deep concerns for the other individuals; which characteristics would be the correct reflection of the identity?

However, where necessary, and perhaps if possible (what exactly that means isn't clear enough to describe at this moment), some interactions will take place where one or more Participants may need to drop or acquire certain characteristics which contradict the expression of one's Identity. This may be so because two Identities may not be capable of generating Participants in a Clique unless some of the Participants (those who express contrary characteristics in their Identity) agree to expressing a combination of characteristics contrary to their own; a set of characteristics which would allow these one or more Identities to generate Participants in a Clique that has a contradictory mode. In order for these Participants to be generated, the one or more opposing parties will have to (as necessary) change or withhold expression of characteristics from their Identities that would cause a constraint contradiction.

In a particular example, a third party (Participant), being the Clique's Owner, sets the Clique's mode, and can accommodate adjustment in the expression of Identity characteristics of one or both of the other Participants provided the other parties have given their consent. This situation might occur where a third party is a legal officer appointed to sort out a dispute between the other two parties who otherwise can't tolerate knowledge of the other's existence.

So, in order for Clique Space to function as envisaged, I currently believe that the Identity must select for expression, those Limiting Constraints from component Elements, which collectively, do not express a contradiction. However, where such a contradiction is evident in the Identities of two or more parties, consent can be obtained from these other parties to allow contrary Limiting Constraints when requested by the Clique's Owner as a condition to the generation of a Participant for the given Clique, and therefore, membership of the collaboration being modelled by this Clique. I know of nothing else that systematically models "consensual compromise" like this.

No Participant is generated from any Identity that does not accept a compromise which will allow their participation in a Clique. This, I contend, is as it is in life: one makes compromises when one participates in any collaborative effort; one nearly always has to make some personal sacrifice for some collective coherence.

Clique Space has many points; but it could be said that one of them is to model to other individuals, the compromises one individual has made, and appears willing to make in order to participate in a collective activity.

Account -> Axle?

Kudos for my good friend Christopher Gal.

The name's perhaps a bit techno... the name's a bit GnR - yes, I know it's Axl - but its a reference, not plagiarism... the name's utilitarian... the name's uncluttered by cultural baggage (except possibly the GnR reference which could shroud the whole Clique Space(TM) thing in an attractive cloak of wiliness, but then again maybe not)... the name's a bit absurd... a bit Deus ex Machina... a bit Terminator... a bit Arnie (hopefully not too much)... a bit full circle to being a bit GnR...a bit Cyberdine Systems... a bit Skynet... a bit mwohahahahaha!... a bit bullshit... a lot bullshit, but this one's growing on me anyway.

Other words considered less than completely attractive are: Axis - Axis of evil (possibly a good Metallica counter-reference); Fulcrum and Pivot - good but do not start with the same letter as Account; Anchor - good, but possibly too nautical (nothing wrong in principle, just not as good as perhaps the more contemporary GnR reference even if the latter might date quicker than the former) for my liking; Hub - used a lot already in talk of computer networks.

Other suggestions perhaps?

Anyway, an Axle (an Account by another name in this blog entry) is the central support of the Client Device: Axles support individuals' Identities, Connections, and Affiliations: one Axle representing one individual. A single Axle represents a single individual behind every Participant; Participants indicate which of any connected or unconnected device is (or, indeed, which of any connected or unconnected devices taken together are) participating in a collaboration with other devices; modelled as a Clique. A Client Device pivots around one Axle in a way analogous to the way a wheel rotates around its axle. The Client Device's purpose is to collect, record, coordinate, and model every one of the connected devices' activity, and channel this activity, as though it were torque, through the Axle Element so all this activity can be presented to the real-world individual the Axle exists to represent. Hence, the term "Axle" provides perhaps an essential explanatory cue for the purpose of Clique Space.

The intent is that the Axle is kept known only to the individual it represents. One creates Identities from the Axle on the Agent Device they possess and transmits these Identities to other Agent Devices it knows of by virtue of the fact that the individual's Agent Device has engaged with others and shares knowledge if not membership of at least one common Clique Space. Connections and Affiliations which refer to to the Identities thus transmitted can be created on other Agent Devices. Although the Connections and Affiliations must necessarily refer to the Axle as a component because a Connection is an association between one individual and one or more devices and an Affiliation is an association between one individual and one or more roles, this property need never be disclosed beyond a single Agent Device; such an Agent Device as is operated exclusively by and in the exclusive possession of the individual to which the Axle represents.

All this is possible because the Axle, Connection, Affiliation, Identity and Participant are all Clique Space Elements, and hence can be created on any Agent Device and transmitted to any other Agent Device. When a Connection is attempted on one Agent Device, it can be associated with an Identity. A bipartite serving Agent Device's Clique is then created with the new Connection, and the two Participants and the new Connection are then transmitted across the Agent Collaboration aether (... a bit matrix... stop it!), eventually to the Agent Device which created the Identity - known as the "originator". This originator Agent Device would also know the value of the Axle to which the Identity refers, and hence, on receipt of an action to add the Participant referring to an Identity for which the Axle is known, determine the validity of the underlying Connection; an action to remove the Participant and the Connection would be re-transmitted over the Agent Collaboration either 1. automatically by the originator when validity cannot be determined or the Axle given in the Participant or Connection (or both) has been determined not to refer to the same Axle as given in the Identity, or 2. when the individual operator disbands the serving Agent Device's Clique because the individual does not like the activity.

Axle... Hmmm...

Account -> "Absurdum"?

Seriously!

It acknowledges that a line in the sand must be drawn on what would occupy any organism capable of sufficiently complex thought. It's also an implementation convenience in that a new letter doesn't have to be substituted where generic parameterisation is called for.

Both cute and realistic.

Being derived from the Latin "reductio ad absurdum", the term carries connotations of formality, and also perhaps underscores the utter silliness of the concept's philosophical direction: a contemplative singularity. Its plural would be "Absurda" and the collective noun might be a "Silliness" of Absurda.

This term also acknowledges the humorous event horizon encircling the purpose of the Account too. Great!

Hmmm...

Account -> "Repropsyche"?

Kudos to my mother for this one.

Possibly, in inventing a term, one can introduce a concept that is free of the weight of culture. My mother's invention appears to be a fair to good attempt. The term acknowledges the representative association of the Account to that bit of an self that doesn't change; that bit of a self that if it did change, would no longer be that bit of the same self: that bit of the individual which the individual would acknowledge cannot change.

More importantly, the term also underscores the fact that the Element is nothing but a representation of the phenomenon of the self - or psyche; something which can legitimately be said would necessarily escape containment. I am loath to assert Clique Space's capacity to contain any substance of this nature.

It's one word. So far as I know, this word is an invention, and hence carries no cultural baggage. No other Element starts with an R, and that means that the Element can be parameterised "R". Nothing else appears to be cute about this, and that might be a good thing.

Hmmm...

Perhaps Account -> Ego?

I have been deliberating over my foray into amateur psychoanalysis, and I'm giving positive reflection over the term Ego as a replacement for Account.

On Wiki at the same reference as quoted in my earlier blog entry, the ego "includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions". This passage also says that the ego "seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief". This last point is rather interesting.

Clique Space was conceived as a tool that a particular user might use to control, model, coordinate and record the activity of any device they possess which they have connected to Clique Space (through their Account, or Ego as I am arguing here). Hence, if a given user's ego continually tries to find a balance between the narcissistic drive of the id and the moral ideals of the super-ego, then it is the ego that is making the decisions, and is ultimately held to account (or Account as per Clique Space's design intent) for them.

Hence, if, through devices one has connected to a Clique Space, these devices' actions are mapped to an individual (or one's ego) and are controlled, modelled, coordinated and recorded in relation to the decisions of other egos likewise connected, then surely, the term Ego would be an intuitive replacement.

The term Ego is three letters long. If, in the implementation, one used the label "Ego" to denote the Ego Element, and one used the label "EGO" to denote its generic parameterisation (I regularly use parameterisation labels of three letters; like "APN" to denote a place where a particular implementation of an Account Profile's node is substituted), then the Element and its parameterisation labels are of equal length, which is cute.

The generic label equivalent of the Identity is "I". That's cute too.

In fact, an analogue could be drawn between the self, having one ego, but many identities; and the Client Device which itself, should the Element's label "Account" be replaced with "Ego", possesses one Ego and one or more Identities in Clique Space. Hence, the self, or the individual, or even the psyche, would remain a holistic reference.

Maybe it would be better to try to avoid direct usage of the term Ego; maybe it would be better to be more precise about the function of this Element by modifying the noun: Ego Token might be a better possibility. Semantic games perhaps. Hmmm...

Account -> Individual or Account -> Self?

Just to underscore a point, I'm thinking about renaming the Account to the Individual. It just seems appropriate because like the reason for renaming the Account Profile to Identity, an Account quacks just like an individual should.

Or, perhaps, the Account can be renamed to the Soul, or Self, or Id, or Ego. Hmm...

I'm tilting to Self. It's rather straightforward.

Usage of the term Soul seems too controversial and tainted by its association to religious dogma. Id and Ego seem inappropriate based on the definitions that lead to both being mere components of a self - Sigmund Freud's structural model of the Self or Psyche.

Psyche might be more acceptable, but yet, this term seems to be a synonym for the self, which I prefer because of its straightforwardness. No other Element starts with an S, so the choice of a name that starts with a unique letter lends itself to reasons that make Self a good selection in the implementation. Also, the shape of the letter S bares similar symmetry to a yin-yang (or 'Taijitu'. if one consults Wikipedia)... which scores highly on cuteness.

According to Wikipedia, "conscious awareness resides in the ego", but I think it is taking things to far to ascribe things like this to any single part of the Clique Space concept; clearly, doing this should be avoided. However, the concept being represented here is something that has constancy, and even a sense of sacredness. The Account, or in at least this blog entry, the Self, is that part of the individual that the individual can have exclusive sovereignty over in Clique Space.

I am quite confident that Clique Space has the capacity to preserve the sovereignty of the Self, and thereby the Self can act as a reliable token which can be used by the actual self it represents. I believe that the data model, as conceived and refined, has this capability as a designed intent.

Hmmm... Self... and amateur psychoanalysis, and possibly an illustration of the ego's ability to rationalise (possibly in this case, to intellectualise, or even to think magically)... on this blog: I love it!

Might an Element's properties promise a significant key to cracking the Clique Space(TM) implementation riddle?

Enough about IBM bullshit. Such trivia I'll probably revisit later...

I have asserted many times in a multitude of ways that Clique Space is a simple way of conceptualising a system that allows a collection of devices, possessing state and belonging to an individual, to be assigned to any particular individual, and for any collection of devices which have been so assigned, to be projected to other individuals who themselves, possess devices that project one or more identities likewise.

The idea is perhaps devilishly simple. It's implementation has been occupying my time for almost four years, and sometimes I get the feeling that the implementation might be getting away on me.

Recently, I have had the need to introduce something called an Element's property. Properties appear to serve many of the purposes that I had glimpsed at over quite a number of earlier points over the past four years, and possibly even earlier than that.

An Element contains a collection of properties; it is a container of properties which are internal to the Clique Space implementation. Although not fully implemented at the time this was written, it appears as though a Participant's properties are the all-important Limiting Constraints; properties which dictate how a Clique Space represents and mediates an individual's participation in a collaboration being modelled and controlled inside a Clique. While Limiting Constraints can appear in any Clique Space Element, the Enabling Constraints which expose the state of a device to Clique Space are contained on a Media Profile hierarchy - an n:m acyclic graph - the "top" node representing the particular devices distinct functionality, and the "root" node representing the Clique Space which has ultimate governorship of how this device is controlled when participating in a Clique. It currently appears appropriate that a Media Profile must contain a single Enabling Constraint and from this Enabling Constraint contain a collection of Limiting Constraint labels which expose device control parameters. It also currently appears appropriate that an Element's Limiting Constraints will be contained in an Elements "Limiting Constraints property" to be used as a source of a Participant's state as it changes - changing a Limiting Constraint in any Element will change the state of a Participant in which that Limiting Constraint is expressed.

Admittedly, I couldn't quite get a grip on the relationship between Limiting Constraints and their expression in a Participant when I drafted the patent. It looks as if the implementation artefact of the properties formalises this relationship, and also allows the Clique Space system to abstract the particular internal workings of its own media away from the Enabling/Limiting Constraints mechanism which would be used to express this working when Agent Devices are represented as Participants in the Clique Space's Clique, bipartite engager's Clique (a synapse), and with administrator devices in bipartite serving Agent Device's Cliques. However, I do contend that while these relationships were still fluid at the time I put the patent together, they are considerations revolving around the details of the implementation rather than the abstract concept; the building blocks (Element, Clique Space, Agent Device, Account, Account Profile, Affiliation, Connection, Identity - nee Active Affiliation, Media Profile, Participant, Enabling Constraint, Limiting Constraint) have remained a sufficiently stable explanation of the concept.

The Client Device still exhibited some fluidity in definition; this was because the relationships between the building blocks required some clarification. But I believe the Client Device, being a collection of Affiliations, Collections, Identities and Participants concerning an individual Account has since acquired a robust definition.

All other artefacts like the administrator device (sometimes described as the Client Device because this has been the only other device which has thus far been able to connect to an Agent Device), the engager, the collaborator, the Clique Space member, the synapse, the property, the transmitter, the precis, the delegate, etc. are artefacts that have emerged through the development and implementation of the concept. Although I might have over-engineered the implementation (most early implementations are over-engineered) I assert that these artefacts emerged only as a causal necessity of getting from the concept to the implementation.

I'm hoping that in time, the Clique Space implementation will find that the introduction of the properties might be the final major artefact that fulfils the abstract intentions given in the Clique Space concept. I also do hope that the jurisdictions in which my patent is registered hold these registrations to be valid if or when they are challenged.

My regard for IBM: IBM's regard for me.

When I put up my last post on similar matters, my blog I received a fair amount of activity. I suppose therefore, that what I say about the general corporate attitudes toward telework raises some controversy. Being that I am not averse to raising a little controversy (better to say that I am averse to the dearth of activity on my blog), I'll here post a letter I wrote to someone earlier this week disclosing more detail around the trouble I've had with IBM.

Here it is. I've taken the liberty to edit it a little to hide the identities of individuals, to correct some statements of fact in the initial letter, and make it say what I want it to say here.

• From February 2005 to May 2006, I was employed by IBM as a graduate software developer. Originally, because I explained at the interview how I felt uncomfortable moving to Sydney and would prefer a less hectic working environment, I was offered a job in Hobart. Several weeks before I was due to start, I was advised that the work in Hobart didn't look likely, and I was to attend a week's induction in Sydney. Near the conclusion of this induction I was told that I would be "deployed" on a customer site (Vodafone) in Chatswood, a northern suburb of Sydney.
  
  That was a start of about 15 months of hell that saw me plunged into an environment wholly inappropriate for me. I was made redundant, and with my redundancy, I received fifteen thousand dollars (14 December 2012: actually, the sum was almost ten thousand dollars) which allowed me to re-establish myself in Wollongong. I was 32 years old, and at this point, I was not diagnosed with any condition that may have resulted from an Acquired Brain Injury I sustained more than 20 years earlier.
  
  Just before I left IBM, I crossed paths with the nice motherly lady who interviewed me for the position, and said to her that I felt betrayed because I believed that IBM always intended to put me in Sydney, and was prepared to pay me pasty lip-service; to sacrifice my intentions for their ends. She suggested that I apply for "redeployment" to Hobart, but I explained to her that IBM had screwed things up so much that I was in no fit state to do anything for IBM. The fact was that I felt barely in a state to do anything for myself.
  
  I had secured two more employment positions after this time, but similar circumstances conspired in each that resulted in my resignation from both. My last resignation was in 2008 at the age of 34. In 2009, I decided to seek some help to find out why I couldn't hold down a job, and why my repetitive appeals to telework part-time were consistently shunned by the IT profession. Finding out that my brain injury may contribute significantly to stress I feel when placed in circumstances which may not hinder other people was an eye opener to the origin of what appears to have become a philosophical argument in favour of telework.
  
  My ABI seems to answer a lot about why I selected software development as a career within a few years after my accident; it seems to be evidence that is strongly suggestive of the reason why I formed, and am so partisan of, the concept of part-time telework. It appears that I cannot cope in highly social environments or commit my attention to specific tasks for extended periods of time. That's too bad: I probably would have grown into a better man or, at least, one more compliant with the norms and expectations of cosmopolitan secular society, had I not fallen off my bike when I was twelve.
  
  I was drawn to computer programming soon after leaving hospital because, as an outpatient, I found the activity was intellectually engaging, and provided me with a self-paced barrier of solitude. But yet, I felt that it would provide me the opportunity to contribute to some productive endeavour. I decided to make it a career probably as a 15 year-old. Over the following two decades, I observed how society has apparently adopted what seems to be to be a perniciously antithetical stance against my core motivations. The IT industry appears to have merely adopted traditional working models of collocation and supervision. The IT industry has matured at the same time as myself, but seems to have purposefully and systematically forgone any consideration to a working style that would accommodate me. In denying me a legitimate place within society, I think this industry has perpetrated a grave injustice.
  
  I think the industry has taken a wrong turn. Although it certainly can, I think it has not fully encompassed the potential in the technology that it has created. It remains wilfully ignorant of its lack of effort in this regard. I got into this industry because of its promise for part-time telework, and if I have formed an adaptive behaviour around my ABI as much as I might have formed a philosophy around the promise of technology, then I will assert that I have nothing to reconsider: I assert that my wish to telework is not, in any conceivable way, incompatible with what IBM needs or wants (15 May 2013: and although I do think my brain injury puts me at a disadvantage to others, I certainly think that anyone who makes an appeal to telework should not have to show they have disability to make a case). I do observe, however, IBM's misapplication of supervised and collocated working tradition that may be the result of cultural inertia. While IBM's behaviour is unacceptable to me, it is merely a reflection of a general cultural regard for people who have a desire to contribute to their society in ways other than those established about 250 years ago.
  
  Deciding that IBM was a suitable target to make my point, I have asked them repetitively to re-employ me. They have repetitively refused. They appear capable, legally as well as culturally, of evading the question of why they think I haven't put a reasonable proposition to them. I have taken them to the Australian Human Rights Commission two times before, and in at least one of these times, when presented with an opportunity to make a reasoned case at a conciliation meeting, they have refused to attend. I could not attract pro-bono legal help for this instance within the 60 days I had to take such action to the federal court. Now, I spend my time writing cathartic letters using words that are inappropriate for this letter to IBM's recruitment department, a previous manager at IBM, at least 40 state and federal politicians, and various others who may have paid me lip-service in the past. I don't remember the name of the motherly lady I mentioned above, and she seemed too motherly to be a direct recipient of my catharsis. Maybe she was a pawn too.
  
  IBM are wholly uncooperative; they will evade any opportunity to pay respect to their own statement that they value workplace diversity especially when it comes to employing someone with a "disability".

Backatya!

My blackened toenail.

Owing to the fact that about four months ago, I ran in a pair of shoes that were one whole size too small, the nail of my right big toe has blackened, and it appears as though it is readying itself to fall off. It is interesting to watch the process: the damaged toenail is growing upward as it grows outward. It appears that the damaged portion is being sealed and discarded because I observe that the blackened and risen portion currently appears to terminate just forward of the cuticle; a new nail appears to be forming in its place.

Looking at the nail closer, the damaged portion appears separated from the actual toe. The blackened appearance appears to be congealed and hardened blood similar to what one would observe on a scab. Indeed, it appears as though the damaged nail (or rather, the damage underneath the nail which resulted from the undue pressure incident on the toe) has formed a scab. The nail on top of the scab has provided additional protection, and, it appears, will fall off in time as part of the healing process.

I marvel at such a process. Not only at the process itself, but at the relationship I have with it. I have always admired the way my body knows how to do things without my conscious effort because this relationship certainly demonstrates the discontinuity between the will and how the will is manifest. Such a discontinuity appears as intriguing to me as it is an inevitable consequence of the reality that a will attempts to shape. On one hand, I am a physical manifestation of a hominid mammal; a multicellular organism. I certainly have a limited ability to repair damage to bits of me that suffer limited strain; tricks which were honed from previous generations of organisms from which my lineage would, if known, be traced. On the other hand, I am also the ghost inside this hominid mammal.

I am a person, and as a person, I appear to have access to two streams of knowledge: a primal genetic knowledge which is carried through every cell in my body which I have no need for conscious awareness of, and which may, provided I have children of my own, be passed on to future generations. The second stream of knowledge appears to possess similar properties to the first, but also appears to have far more recently come into existence: it appears to be governed by an emergent ghost inside the first stream: the acquisition by the hominid mammalian species of a conscious will. Whereas the first stream of knowledge propagates itself through a molecular medium, the second uses a whole collection of media - whatever media two or more participants (two conscious entities if exchanging something between conscious entities, or one conscious entity if one consciousness is having an introspective conversation) may find useful as a conveyor of this knowledge.

Might the second stream be forever bound to the first, or might the second be synthesised in an "artificial environment" so it could to have an existence beyond any limitations of the first. Questions concerning the origins and the nature of consciousness have been asked by the society of human hominids in which I exist for as long as this species (and maybe its ancestors) have possessed a will to ask these questions. These questions have been the genesis of both religion and science, and have underpinned social progress.

To me, it seems that my genetic code may appear to have biased my conscious will to conceive Clique Space(TM). Without the backing of my genetic code (and the layers of conscious and pre-conscious mechanisms - including the mechanisms of genetics - that appear to sit between my will and reality), could a conscious will emerge inside a synthetic environment? How much of the underlying mechanisms need to be present in this synthetic environment? Could a Clique Space provide and environment in which a conscious will would emerge? Could Clique Space provide at least the essential mechanism which, merely through scale, would provide an environment through which a conscious, and introspective will, would necessarily emerge? Has the mystery of consciousness been answered by Clique Space?

If such a claim as I make about Clique Space could be successfully demonstrated, does that give an answer to the emergent ghost inside a Clique Space? If such a ghost might ask such a question of its own origins, might it find the same need for an answer, or might it find that, perhaps as I understand things, directing questions such as these to "one's self" is precisely the mechanism that gives rise to synthetic sentience?

Perhaps such questions that result in concepts like Clique Space may threaten the stability of the society shaped by, and up to now, for the exclusive enjoyment by this hominid human species. Perhaps, these questions will yield positive and negative consequences for this society, the proportions of which may be owed to a period of significant change for which some serious decision making effort by the hominid human species and members of the synthetic will of human "creation" might have to be committed.

A toolmaker is all I am.