September 9th, 2007 - This is an exercise in creativity, but I am also serious. For those not aware, there is an international Outer Space Treaty. The effect of the Outer Space Treaty was to restrict control of private property rights, in the way that the law of the sea prevents anyone owning the sea. This is often disputed by those who claim the ability to sell property rights on the Moon and other bodies. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits only nations from claiming sovereignty but does not prohibit private ownership. To date, the dispute has never been tested in a court of law.

Finalized in 1979 and entered into force for the ratifying parties in 1984, the Moon Treaty, which was a follow-on to the Outer Space Treaty, intended to establish a regime for the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies. As it is unratified by any major space-faring powers and unsigned by most of them, it is of no direct relevance to current space activities.

One individual U.S. citizen was the first documented claimant of the moon. Taken seriously or not, and irrelevant to individual opinions, millions of dollars of land have been sold on the moon. Should someone begin mining Helium-3 (He-3) on the moon these property rights will surely be tested.

There are emerging new frontiers dealing with territories of Inner Space. For those who do not know, an atom is more than 99.9% empty space, and the protons and neutrons make up a very small amount of the volume of an atom. IBM has applied for US patents that would allow them to store data in the vacuum of the atom's inner space. (they need a license from me to apply their patient) This demonstrates that inner space property rights will be an issue in the future, just as outer space rights still are today.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist, Hal Plotkin, who is also the Silicon Valley Correspondent for CNBC.com, writes, "As a field, nanotechnology is about where rocket science was at the dawn of the Space Age. Huge early investments in the space race yielded technological dividends that are only now beginning to dwindle. A similar race toward inner space will probably lead to even more lasting rewards." Plotkin also notes, "Concerns over safety have already led to the creation of a voluntary set of ethical guidelines for nanotechnologists." ((Hal Plotkin, San Francisco Chronicle))

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Thomas Adams, who has criticized the U.S. military for its failure to envision the potential consequences of technologies it is helping to develop said "We are rapidly approaching an event horizon in human development, a point at which the mutually reinforcing trends described here will combine to produce an aggregate result so different from what we now know that it is impossible to guess what it will be." ((Retired U.S. Army Colonel, Thomas Adams))

Sean Howard, Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction wrote, "Before long, there may be need for an 'inner space' treaty to protect the planet from devastation caused - accidentally, or by terrorists, or in open conflict - by artificial atomic and molecular structures capable of destroying environments and life forms from within." ((Sean Howard, Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction))

Presently, inner space is unclaimed by any sovereign state, or any private or common law citizen in the world. A search of scientific journals, library databases, search engines, media and newspaper archives has shown that no human on Earth has ever discussed making, nor has made any claim to the territory of inner space. This territory is unclaimed. In addition, no Inner Space Treaty has been created, signed or ratified by any nation on Earth.

As such, I, Bryant McGill hereby lay claim, to the entirety of Inner Space. This claim includes all of inner space, on Earth, and the universe, (or multiverses if they exist) which represents 99.9+ % of everything. (Except the inner-space claimed in 1958, by Harold Henry Elsesser, who became the first person licensed to †̃use and operate in any way he desires, the space inside his own bowling ball.)

FOR SALE: If you want to own the inner space (99.9+%) of anything just ask in the comments, and I will possibly transfer ownership to you. (twitter accounts, domains, property, people - everything goes.) The price of each transaction is one tweet button click, making the transaction legal. My intention is to create a debate about the ethical issues of this possible technology. It brings into the discussion private property, corporate patienting and ownership issues. For example the issue of owning the inner space of an individual, and then storing data or material in the person. While this is for fun and exploration, I am also serious. I own 99.9+% of everything, including you. (Except Harold Henry Elsesser's bowling ball.)