5 ms·

Could the essential aspects of a reactor design be patented so that value can be captured despite innovation being created in the open?

by gomox 7y ago

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Possibly, as long as participants can still be motivated to working within the open effort. Frankly, effective reduction to practice is required 1000x more than traditional "innovation" in nuclear. Every bright mind in the 1950s was dreaming up whacky and incredible reactor designs, and everything I've ever thought of, from spinning vortex/whirlpool fuel to giant uranium gaseous pistons already has 50-page publications from back then sitting on OSTI. What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Otherwise it's just a game of who can get investors/government most excited about their particular reactor concept, which, without actually understanding, adjusting, and improving upon what's happened in the past, will struggle mightily.
- gomox 7y ago
  They can be motivated by acquiring stake in the success of their research and development. But the only way I can picture that working is if there is way to capture the value that is compatible with developing it in the open, hence the question.
- nickik 7y ago
  > What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Sadly this is currently just not possible. You can not get regulatory approval for a prototype beyond a tiny research reactor (that is unsuited to test real production reactors). Thus nuclear companies are forced to directly produce to a production design, and to production regulation and not just that, but also prove operational regulation and so on. This comes with incredible cost and it is very much possible that a nuclear reactor company builds one design and works with it for 20-30 years because doing any substantial redesign would require a completely new regulatory process. Thankfully regulators in Canada and the US have been waking up to the fact that regulation as currently designed have totally crushed innovation and are trying to reform. Canada is leading in this and British, US and Canadian companies all have started to go threw the Canadian regulatory process because of this. But 40 years of fearmongering and regulation introduced right when nuclear scare was at its peak are deeply embedded both in the regulation and the culture of these agency.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
Publishing (public disclosure) starts a 1-year clock on patentability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure In an effort that incrementally builds to something patentable, it would be difficult to find the perfect moment where the previous year's efforts amount to something meaningful and patentable.
- gomox 7y ago
  That's fine as long as you can patent some core innovation and then develop the rest later. There is protectable IP to be shared between collaborators.

Could the essential aspects of a reactor design be patented so that value can be captured despite innovation being created in the open?

by gomox 7y ago

Could the essential aspects of a reactor design be patented so that value can be captured despite innovation being created in the open?

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Possibly, as long as participants can still be motivated to working within the open effort. Frankly, effective reduction to practice is required 1000x more than traditional "innovation" in nuclear. Every bright mind in the 1950s was dreaming up whacky and incredible reactor designs, and everything I've ever thought of, from spinning vortex/whirlpool fuel to giant uranium gaseous pistons already has 50-page publications from back then sitting on OSTI. What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Otherwise it's just a game of who can get investors/government most excited about their particular reactor concept, which, without actually understanding, adjusting, and improving upon what's happened in the past, will struggle mightily.

gomox 7y ago
They can be motivated by acquiring stake in the success of their research and development. But the only way I can picture that working is if there is way to capture the value that is compatible with developing it in the open, hence the question.
nickik 7y ago
> What's needed is to figure out how to get nuclear technology into a practical rapid iteration process where we can shake down good ideas vs. bad ideas, and put some rigor behind cost and schedule estimates. Sadly this is currently just not possible. You can not get regulatory approval for a prototype beyond a tiny research reactor (that is unsuited to test real production reactors). Thus nuclear companies are forced to directly produce to a production design, and to production regulation and not just that, but also prove operational regulation and so on. This comes with incredible cost and it is very much possible that a nuclear reactor company builds one design and works with it for 20-30 years because doing any substantial redesign would require a completely new regulatory process. Thankfully regulators in Canada and the US have been waking up to the fact that regulation as currently designed have totally crushed innovation and are trying to reform. Canada is leading in this and British, US and Canadian companies all have started to go threw the Canadian regulatory process because of this. But 40 years of fearmongering and regulation introduced right when nuclear scare was at its peak are deeply embedded both in the regulation and the culture of these agency.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

Publishing (public disclosure) starts a 1-year clock on patentability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_disclosure In an effort that incrementally builds to something patentable, it would be difficult to find the perfect moment where the previous year's efforts amount to something meaningful and patentable.

gomox 7y ago
That's fine as long as you can patent some core innovation and then develop the rest later. There is protectable IP to be shared between collaborators.