3 ms·
It would obviously not be for-profit. But it would benefit them indirectly. For investors who invest in biotech, they need to realize that open access is as im
by cblconfederate 5y ago
It would obviously not be for-profit. But it would benefit them indirectly. For investors who invest in biotech, they need to realize that open access is as important as open source is to software. Scientists have failed to overcome the collective action problem
- TeMPOraL 5y ago> For investors who invest in biotech, they need to realize that open access is as important as open source is to software. Open Source is important to software companies only because it lets them build new products cheaply. Most companies don't care, unless they can use it for cheap publicity, or to hurt their competition by making an open-source version of their proprietary product. OSS definitely did shift the landscape - it almost killed desktop software! There's a reason why technology business love SaaS business model - it's not just the recurring revenue, it's also because it's immune from being killed by open source. You can create a free alternative to any software running on end user's machine, but you can't do that to proprietary code running on servers the service provider owns. Open access doesn't bring such immediate, direct benefits to research companies - so investors will be less keen to sponsor it. There's just no business model here.