4 ms·
You won't get any takers for offsetting some of that $100B in costs if there's zero incentive for a private company to fund such research.
by Robotbeat 7y ago
You won't get any takers for offsetting some of that $100B in costs if there's zero incentive for a private company to fund such research.
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoThis is a misunderstanding of open source. Just because you share your research does not mean there is zero benefit to doing that research. There is significant benefit to getting the answers you need. There’s a lot of groups that would value getting their research done even if they have to share it, including universities and public healthcare research institutions outside of the US. Requiring that the information be open would not starve nasa of customers, it would simply attract different customers. Forcing the research to be public could have significant benefits to the world.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoI'm really thirsty, oh look a well built by the public, hey there's a bucket stall in the nearby town, I could get a bucket and then everyone can have a drink ... oh hang on though, other people might use my bucket. Oh, best just stay thirsty then. Hang on, perhaps I can force the people to pay for security guards that stop them from using my bucket ...
- Robotbeat 7y agoWe are, of course, talking about research to develop intellectual property. Probably most people on HN are employed in producing protected intellectual property in some way.
- jMyles 7y ago> Probably most people on HN are employed in producing protected intellectual property in some way. I don't think most people on HN even believe in intellectual property conceptually, much less view their activities through that lens. I develop software, and that software has a license (mostly AGPLv3 at this point) because I live in the real world. But it's nobody's property; it's just math.
- Robotbeat 7y agoOkay, and the companies that might utilize the space station also have to exist in the real world.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoNot if you register one while you are up there.
- jMyles 7y agoMaybe I'm just missing your line of reasoning here. I thought you were saying that you expected people on HN to rush to the defense of intellectual property as a viable abstraction for understanding (for example) software or research. Do I have it wrong? Yes, companies exist in the real world. The real world is full of open source. And full of companies that produce open source material and don't regard it as "intellectual property" except insofar as to license it to protect themselves and their users/readers/customers.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Ensorceled 7y agoThat's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is I could buy a bucket but somebody might (will!) take it home and use it as a footstool and I will have wasted my money.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoThat's not analogous, open research doesn't prevent you using it. Presumably you think copyright infringement is theft too.
- Ensorceled 7y agoNice ad hominem. The problem IP laws try to solve is that the best researcher is not necessarily in the best position to execute on their discoveries. Or, worse, executing on the discovery is incredibly cheap (such as new drugs) and the value is impossible to recover. The more expensive the research, the more likely that is to be. Research either needs to be publically funded OR some kind of limited monopoly applied. None of this implies that the current IP mechanisms are not seriously broken.
- sgift 7y agoIf you really don't get any takers you can always later decide to change the modalities. No reason to start with something profiting only a few from the start.