6 ms·

> Yes, that's right. I was a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and we had government funding and were doing quite well. Google got inter

> Yes, that's right. I was a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and we had government funding and were doing quite well. Google got interested and my group and I came over to work at Google, basically because we both wanted to build a useful quantum computer. So basically US taxpayers were involuntary seed investors who funded the highest initial risk to achieve validation and proceeded to be wiped out at Round A by Google.

rapsey 6y ago
Yes that is how it works and it works well. Government should fund pie in the sky research projects and private industry should take that and make products. It is the history of Silicon Valley and it produced quite a bit of wealth don't you think?
papeda 6y ago
What would you prefer? That anyone who receives government research funding be barred from entering the private sector later?
- seemslegit 6y ago
  That the public maintains its share in the upside ? For example by having Google put in money back into the NSF budget
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    This is called taxes. Maybe not as high as they should be, but such things exist.
  - jerome-jh 6y ago
    USCB probably applied for patents that will bring money back once products are actually on the market.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
No, this is exactly why Universities exist. As idea machines that occasionally turn out something that changes the world. As well as educating our (elite) children.
- seemslegit 6y ago
  And that's great, but nowhere does it say that this something should end up as the property of a corporation who will then charge the public for its use.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Can't enslave professors, so its part of the deal. Been happening about 1000 years. And I'm not sure I care to make Universities into profit centers (any more than they are).
    - seemslegit 6y ago
      Neither is what being proposed nor is a reasonable reading of the above, if Google hires out an entire group and its associated work then the university and federal research funding agencies should maintain equity in its results, many universities have programs for exactly this kind of thing. Also afaik John Martinis maintained a paid and tenured position at UCSB during his work at Google.
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Not sure how that's different at all. Hiring out === freedom of the individual. Not going to support any rule to keep University employees from going to work wherever they please. Its the idea that the University would 'own' part of a commercial enterprise that's chilling. Means even more commercialization of Universities than at present.
        auntienomen 6y ago
        It's not unusual for universities to own part of a commercial enterprise. Stanford owned a chunk of Google, IIRC. More commonly they derive revenue from licensing intellectual property.
sfifs 6y ago
Isn't that a good thing for US if it creates a breakthrough and an industry it can dominate? US has a few years of lead and it's best to maximize when it can. Other large countries' governments are definitely funding their own research groups in this space and while previously in the 80s and 90s trade sanctions were a potent threat, it's become very clear from the experiences of India and China in the 2000s that there's nothing much US can do (short of a MAD nuclear war) to hold any moderately powerful country back. So it's best to not fritter away the lead and throw what resources it can when there's still time to keep the lead.
- rapsey 6y ago
  > it's become very clear from the experiences of India and China in the 2000s that there's nothing much US can do (short of a MAD nuclear war) to hold any moderately powerful country back. The US has not tried to hold China back in any way since 2000. More like it did everything possible to help them grow.
  - sfifs 6y ago
    Ref: recent trade war and in particular the action against Huawei. Going overboard on Huawei sanctions in particular underscored the strategic and economic threat to the Chinese leadership (who are by and large pretty competent technocrats). So now they're not going to stop at anything to cut the dependency. My guess is we'll see a competitive server and/or mobile chip out of China Fabs within 3 years, notwithstanding US pressure on ASML and Netherlands to not export EUV equipment.
    - rapsey 6y ago
      Those are recent and not really all that severe actions. Compared to the policies of the last 30 years that basically made china what it is. Even agains huawei they US stopped well short of any serious actions.
softwarejosh 6y ago
well, them and ucsb undergrads

rapsey 6y ago

Yes that is how it works and it works well. Government should fund pie in the sky research projects and private industry should take that and make products. It is the history of Silicon Valley and it produced quite a bit of wealth don't you think?

papeda 6y ago

What would you prefer? That anyone who receives government research funding be barred from entering the private sector later?

seemslegit 6y ago
That the public maintains its share in the upside ? For example by having Google put in money back into the NSF budget
- perl4ever 6y ago
  This is called taxes. Maybe not as high as they should be, but such things exist.
- jerome-jh 6y ago
  USCB probably applied for patents that will bring money back once products are actually on the market.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

No, this is exactly why Universities exist. As idea machines that occasionally turn out something that changes the world. As well as educating our (elite) children.

seemslegit 6y ago
And that's great, but nowhere does it say that this something should end up as the property of a corporation who will then charge the public for its use.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Can't enslave professors, so its part of the deal. Been happening about 1000 years. And I'm not sure I care to make Universities into profit centers (any more than they are).
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    Neither is what being proposed nor is a reasonable reading of the above, if Google hires out an entire group and its associated work then the university and federal research funding agencies should maintain equity in its results, many universities have programs for exactly this kind of thing. Also afaik John Martinis maintained a paid and tenured position at UCSB during his work at Google.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Not sure how that's different at all. Hiring out === freedom of the individual. Not going to support any rule to keep University employees from going to work wherever they please. Its the idea that the University would 'own' part of a commercial enterprise that's chilling. Means even more commercialization of Universities than at present.
      - auntienomen 6y ago
        It's not unusual for universities to own part of a commercial enterprise. Stanford owned a chunk of Google, IIRC. More commonly they derive revenue from licensing intellectual property.

sfifs 6y ago

Isn't that a good thing for US if it creates a breakthrough and an industry it can dominate? US has a few years of lead and it's best to maximize when it can. Other large countries' governments are definitely funding their own research groups in this space and while previously in the 80s and 90s trade sanctions were a potent threat, it's become very clear from the experiences of India and China in the 2000s that there's nothing much US can do (short of a MAD nuclear war) to hold any moderately powerful country back. So it's best to not fritter away the lead and throw what resources it can when there's still time to keep the lead.

rapsey 6y ago
> it's become very clear from the experiences of India and China in the 2000s that there's nothing much US can do (short of a MAD nuclear war) to hold any moderately powerful country back. The US has not tried to hold China back in any way since 2000. More like it did everything possible to help them grow.
- sfifs 6y ago
  Ref: recent trade war and in particular the action against Huawei. Going overboard on Huawei sanctions in particular underscored the strategic and economic threat to the Chinese leadership (who are by and large pretty competent technocrats). So now they're not going to stop at anything to cut the dependency. My guess is we'll see a competitive server and/or mobile chip out of China Fabs within 3 years, notwithstanding US pressure on ASML and Netherlands to not export EUV equipment.
  - rapsey 6y ago
    Those are recent and not really all that severe actions. Compared to the policies of the last 30 years that basically made china what it is. Even agains huawei they US stopped well short of any serious actions.

softwarejosh 6y ago

well, them and ucsb undergrads