3 ms·

How do people reckon with the limitations on the use of new scientific discoveries imposed by copyrights, trade secrets and patents? In other words: how do you

How do people reckon with the limitations on the use of new scientific discoveries imposed by copyrights, trade secrets and patents? In other words: how do you justify the use of artificial limitations imposed by the commodification and monopolizing of science (through ‘intellectual property’ systems)? Especially since most inventions are made possible/are funded by the state (see the work of Mariana Mazzucato and her book ‘The Entrepreneurial State’ for fully fleshed out arguments for this), as well as the actual labor being done by wage laborers (not the people owning these trade secrets and patents). It doesn’t necessarily need to be specifically for this invention. The question came up for me while reading this thread.

Fomite 6y ago
One note: Because a lot of basic science is done by researchers who don't want to start businesses, commercialization via licensing is one of the mechanisms available to them to actually see something get to market. Many of those agreements have "use it or lose it" style provisions in them.
jjoonathan 6y ago
Scientists are scandalously underpaid. IP is a way to compensate them without increasing the official budget. See also: green cards. In general, science has a massive value capture problem and gets systematically underfunded as a result. If research A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J was required to reach commercializable result K, the usual situation is that money backpropagation stops at J or K depending on how aggressive the IP commodification was. I am far more scandalized by the fact that A-I get left out of the value calculus than by the fact that J can sometimes wedge its foot into the door. I would strongly prefer a system where we fully compensate scientists in dollars and don't play IP games, but that doesn't seem to be on the table.
- medium_burrito 6y ago
  Scandalously underpaid is putting it lightly. We've basically transitioned to scientists being minimum wage workers, with the main incentive being permanent residency for the legions of foreign phds. Of note, engineering other than software also pays like shit compared to the cost of living. If I had to make a bet, I'd say there will be a lot less innovation and cool new stuff being invented outside of software due to brain drain. If I could be a mechanical engineer and afford a house in a big city, sure, but that's just not doable, whereas I can easily get a job that will cover my rather prodigious mortgage payment.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
Wow, you’re literally one step away from accusing the Jews of trying to control and own everything on earth and of having goals of complete world domination. I suggest you stop exploring this avenue of thought immediately. Wouldn’t want to get shadowbanned now would we?

Fomite 6y ago

One note: Because a lot of basic science is done by researchers who don't want to start businesses, commercialization via licensing is one of the mechanisms available to them to actually see something get to market. Many of those agreements have "use it or lose it" style provisions in them.

jjoonathan 6y ago

Scientists are scandalously underpaid. IP is a way to compensate them without increasing the official budget. See also: green cards. In general, science has a massive value capture problem and gets systematically underfunded as a result. If research A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J was required to reach commercializable result K, the usual situation is that money backpropagation stops at J or K depending on how aggressive the IP commodification was. I am far more scandalized by the fact that A-I get left out of the value calculus than by the fact that J can sometimes wedge its foot into the door. I would strongly prefer a system where we fully compensate scientists in dollars and don't play IP games, but that doesn't seem to be on the table.

medium_burrito 6y ago
Scandalously underpaid is putting it lightly. We've basically transitioned to scientists being minimum wage workers, with the main incentive being permanent residency for the legions of foreign phds. Of note, engineering other than software also pays like shit compared to the cost of living. If I had to make a bet, I'd say there will be a lot less innovation and cool new stuff being invented outside of software due to brain drain. If I could be a mechanical engineer and afford a house in a big city, sure, but that's just not doable, whereas I can easily get a job that will cover my rather prodigious mortgage payment.

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

Wow, you’re literally one step away from accusing the Jews of trying to control and own everything on earth and of having goals of complete world domination. I suggest you stop exploring this avenue of thought immediately. Wouldn’t want to get shadowbanned now would we?