3 ms·

> This is not wrong. It is if the research was paid for by the public.

michaelt 7y ago
If a Canadian university invents a new image filter that will make fifty million dollars for companies whose products include image filters, but all such companies are foreign (instagram, apple, adobe, facebook...) why should the Canadian taxpayer give it to them for free? It's not like Instagram are going to pass the cost of licensing on to users.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  If you have a mechanism for making the patent freely available to Canadians only that's fine. But if the taxpayers who funded the research have to license the technology to use it, that's just robbery.
  - jrockway 7y ago
    I'm not sure taxpayers are covering all the costs. When I was a kid I used to golf at a golf course that was owned by the county. You still had to pay to play there. People that don't play golf pay very little for the course to exist, but they are still paying something. Maybe this is "robbery" (which is not what that word means), but you still get the benefits of living near open space (no car-owners living there, trees turning CO2 into oxygen, bees pollinating your flowers), etc. All in all, it doesn't seem too bad. (It is $26 a round, btw.) Research universities fill a similar role. They are good to have around, even if you can't monetize their research for free. There are other benefits.
    - balfirevic 7y ago
      Obvious difference between the golf course and research results, which justifies different treatment, is that the golf course is rival good. > Research universities fill a similar role. They are good to have around, even if you can't monetize their research for free. There are other benefits. I did not claim that the downside of granting patents to universities is so large that universities should not exist at all. Only that it would be better and more just to not grant them patents based on publicly funded research.
    - L_Rahman 7y ago
      I agree with your general argument, but golf courses are such an unfortunate example. They're the one use of public space that would be many orders of magnitude better for the community if they were used completely differently. A park would be a good start, but there are so many more.

If a Canadian university invents a new image filter that will make fifty million dollars for companies whose products include image filters, but all such companies are foreign (instagram, apple, adobe, facebook...) why should the Canadian taxpayer give it to them for free? It's not like Instagram are going to pass the cost of licensing on to users.

balfirevic 7y ago
If you have a mechanism for making the patent freely available to Canadians only that's fine. But if the taxpayers who funded the research have to license the technology to use it, that's just robbery.
- jrockway 7y ago
  I'm not sure taxpayers are covering all the costs. When I was a kid I used to golf at a golf course that was owned by the county. You still had to pay to play there. People that don't play golf pay very little for the course to exist, but they are still paying something. Maybe this is "robbery" (which is not what that word means), but you still get the benefits of living near open space (no car-owners living there, trees turning CO2 into oxygen, bees pollinating your flowers), etc. All in all, it doesn't seem too bad. (It is $26 a round, btw.) Research universities fill a similar role. They are good to have around, even if you can't monetize their research for free. There are other benefits.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    Obvious difference between the golf course and research results, which justifies different treatment, is that the golf course is rival good. > Research universities fill a similar role. They are good to have around, even if you can't monetize their research for free. There are other benefits. I did not claim that the downside of granting patents to universities is so large that universities should not exist at all. Only that it would be better and more just to not grant them patents based on publicly funded research.
  - L_Rahman 7y ago
    I agree with your general argument, but golf courses are such an unfortunate example. They're the one use of public space that would be many orders of magnitude better for the community if they were used completely differently. A park would be a good start, but there are so many more.