4 ms·

Is it the case that the research was publicly-funded, but the profits are now being privatized?

cheriot 10y ago
American government funded research that turns into a business creating jobs in America sounds like a reasonable outcome to me. After China stole solar, we need some other industry with growth potential. Edit: Do the down voters care to comment? Anti-nationalism, anti-capitalism, or what?
- EpicEng 10y ago
  I don't know why you're being down voted. It is in the public interest for businesses like these to prosper.
  - cheriot 10y ago
    My conspiracy theory is that the comment swung from -4 to +4 as China went to sleep and the US arrived at work.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- touristtam 10y ago
  The issue is publicly founded research aleviate the burden of the investment from the private sector, while selling the right to the new technology to a sole private entity. The whole thing could, unless the government blocked it, be sold to a private chinese company down the line.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    This is how the system has worked, quite well, for decades if not centuries. The short term profit motive prevents the vast majority of companies from carrying out basic research like this and without IP protections most won't risk investing into manufacturing infrastructure that will quickly be copied in lower cost jurisdictions. There is a lot wrong with our patent system but it does its job for the most part.
  - cheriot 10y ago
    > The whole thing could, unless the government blocked it, be sold to a private chinese company down the line. It wouldn't be the first battery company out of MIT to go that route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems If our trade policies assume a free market then we open the door to these situations. There's no free trade treaty to blame when China out maneuvers more developed countries like this. Perhaps the solution is to become more mercantilist instead of worshiping free markets.
Kenji 10y ago
The public funds things that result in private profits all the time. I.e. education, roads, etc. It's not really outrageous. It's the state's duty to provide a platform for its people to excel.
- matthewmorgan 10y ago
  I was aware that public funds are sometimes spent on useful things. But is it right that the taxpayer absorbs the cost and risks of research, with the profits going into strictly private hands?
  - minikites 10y ago
    In theory, we would tax those profits to pull some of that value back to society, but anti-tax sentiment is so high in the USA that we don't really do that.
finid 10y ago
This has always been the case. Researchers are free to take the results of their publicly-funded research and run. The govt. sees it as a win-win. It's money well spent because of the jobs created. Taxes from those jobs and profits from the corporations is the ROI.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Or the government could own the patent and licence it to american business and prevent rent seeking from the inventors. It is the same income, but the outcome for the society is better I think. There will still be jobs created and corporate profits.
- matthew_morgan 10y ago
  So we're taxed in order to generate more money in taxes... How is that a "return on investment"? When is the return, exactly? And if you follow the logic about jobs, why doesn't the government (i.e. the taxpayer) fund every potentially profitable venture (without asking for any share of the rewards)?
  - finid 10y ago
    I'm not saying that it's the best arrangement, but that's how it works now. Most university research are publicly funded via the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). So without such funding, most research will be grounded. Companies like Yahoo!, Google, Sun Microsystems (RIP), Akamai, etc, were/are the result of publicly-funded research.
josaka 10y ago
Federal Acquisition Regulations govern the allocation of IP arising from many gov. funded activities. For the DOE, I believe the default is that the rights are assigned to the government, with a right to practice being retained by the recipient of funds. https://www.govregs.com/uscode/42/2182 https://www.govregs.com/uscode/42/2182. That said, agencies will waive these rights in some cases.
woodandsteel 10y ago
The reason things are set up this way is that the government is great at funding long-term research, whereas industry is pretty terrible at it, for the most part. But then when it comes to making an invention actually useful to people and producing it at a reasonable price, the government is awful and industry is amazing.
- matthewmorgan 10y ago
  Care to provide a single fact in support of those two amazing assertions?
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    On the research side, see things like the internet. Corporations, with rare exceptions like Bell Labs, don't fund research that has no clear commercial potential or that might but it would take decades to pay off. On the production side, we have countless products like automobiles and smart phones that corporations have produced, but none from the government. The only semi-exception I can think of is the USSR turned out a lot of great military technology, but that was part of an arms race, not providing commercial products. But you are familiar with these sorts of examples, yet you think my claim is all wrong. Is it because you have lots of specific examples, for research and also for production?

American government funded research that turns into a business creating jobs in America sounds like a reasonable outcome to me. After China stole solar, we need some other industry with growth potential. Edit: Do the down voters care to comment? Anti-nationalism, anti-capitalism, or what?

EpicEng 10y ago
I don't know why you're being down voted. It is in the public interest for businesses like these to prosper.
- cheriot 10y ago
  My conspiracy theory is that the comment swung from -4 to +4 as China went to sleep and the US arrived at work.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
touristtam 10y ago
The issue is publicly founded research aleviate the burden of the investment from the private sector, while selling the right to the new technology to a sole private entity. The whole thing could, unless the government blocked it, be sold to a private chinese company down the line.
- akiselev 10y ago
  This is how the system has worked, quite well, for decades if not centuries. The short term profit motive prevents the vast majority of companies from carrying out basic research like this and without IP protections most won't risk investing into manufacturing infrastructure that will quickly be copied in lower cost jurisdictions. There is a lot wrong with our patent system but it does its job for the most part.
- cheriot 10y ago
  > The whole thing could, unless the government blocked it, be sold to a private chinese company down the line. It wouldn't be the first battery company out of MIT to go that route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems If our trade policies assume a free market then we open the door to these situations. There's no free trade treaty to blame when China out maneuvers more developed countries like this. Perhaps the solution is to become more mercantilist instead of worshiping free markets.

Kenji 10y ago

The public funds things that result in private profits all the time. I.e. education, roads, etc. It's not really outrageous. It's the state's duty to provide a platform for its people to excel.

matthewmorgan 10y ago
I was aware that public funds are sometimes spent on useful things. But is it right that the taxpayer absorbs the cost and risks of research, with the profits going into strictly private hands?
- minikites 10y ago
  In theory, we would tax those profits to pull some of that value back to society, but anti-tax sentiment is so high in the USA that we don't really do that.

finid 10y ago

This has always been the case. Researchers are free to take the results of their publicly-funded research and run. The govt. sees it as a win-win. It's money well spent because of the jobs created. Taxes from those jobs and profits from the corporations is the ROI.

venomsnake 10y ago
Or the government could own the patent and licence it to american business and prevent rent seeking from the inventors. It is the same income, but the outcome for the society is better I think. There will still be jobs created and corporate profits.
matthew_morgan 10y ago
So we're taxed in order to generate more money in taxes... How is that a "return on investment"? When is the return, exactly? And if you follow the logic about jobs, why doesn't the government (i.e. the taxpayer) fund every potentially profitable venture (without asking for any share of the rewards)?
- finid 10y ago
  I'm not saying that it's the best arrangement, but that's how it works now. Most university research are publicly funded via the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). So without such funding, most research will be grounded. Companies like Yahoo!, Google, Sun Microsystems (RIP), Akamai, etc, were/are the result of publicly-funded research.

josaka 10y ago

Federal Acquisition Regulations govern the allocation of IP arising from many gov. funded activities. For the DOE, I believe the default is that the rights are assigned to the government, with a right to practice being retained by the recipient of funds. https://www.govregs.com/uscode/42/2182 https://www.govregs.com/uscode/42/2182. That said, agencies will waive these rights in some cases.

woodandsteel 10y ago

The reason things are set up this way is that the government is great at funding long-term research, whereas industry is pretty terrible at it, for the most part. But then when it comes to making an invention actually useful to people and producing it at a reasonable price, the government is awful and industry is amazing.

matthewmorgan 10y ago
Care to provide a single fact in support of those two amazing assertions?
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  On the research side, see things like the internet. Corporations, with rare exceptions like Bell Labs, don't fund research that has no clear commercial potential or that might but it would take decades to pay off. On the production side, we have countless products like automobiles and smart phones that corporations have produced, but none from the government. The only semi-exception I can think of is the USSR turned out a lot of great military technology, but that was part of an arms race, not providing commercial products. But you are familiar with these sorts of examples, yet you think my claim is all wrong. Is it because you have lots of specific examples, for research and also for production?