6 ms·

Now if University research could not be patented, we'd be getting somewhere ...

by throwaway1979 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "The public" seems like a reasonable option. The public pays for it, and in return, the public gets that 'intellectual property'.
  - wfunction 13y ago
    The public pays for it, but often times, so does industry.
    - mtgx 13y ago
      Then it should be separate, patent-free with public money, patented with industry money.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Having been involved with some of these Industry/Academic partnership grants, some of them are not what you think. The worst I have seen are simply corporate welfare, using colleges to launder the source of the money.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    It's not quite as simple as that. The public pays these researchers' salaries, but part of the bargain is that they get to profit from anything they patent. If that were no longer the case, a lot of researchers might jump ship to the private sector, where they get higher salaries in return for their employer controlling their research. In any case, it's not fair to change the bargain retrospectively. The promise of being able to patent and otherwise profit from their research is part of the bargain in the existing status quo, and an important part of that bargain.
    - throwaway1979 13y ago
      That's the model of industrial labs. You get a salary. IP is owned by the company. Wouldn't it be awesome if there was some institution (a University is a perfect example), which similarly pays its researchers a salary (sure, it should match the private sector salaries) and the resulting IP is public domain. Heck, it would promote the private sector to devote more resources to research ... if the private sector made a discovery, they could patent it and get exclusivity. If a University did it, it belongs to everyone.
gcr 13y ago
Why would that be important? Many professors conduct research that they wish to commercialize in their startups/side companies.

Now if University research could not be patented, we'd be getting somewhere ...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jlgreco 13y ago
"The public" seems like a reasonable option. The public pays for it, and in return, the public gets that 'intellectual property'.
- wfunction 13y ago
  The public pays for it, but often times, so does industry.
  - mtgx 13y ago
    Then it should be separate, patent-free with public money, patented with industry money.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Having been involved with some of these Industry/Academic partnership grants, some of them are not what you think. The worst I have seen are simply corporate welfare, using colleges to launder the source of the money.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's not quite as simple as that. The public pays these researchers' salaries, but part of the bargain is that they get to profit from anything they patent. If that were no longer the case, a lot of researchers might jump ship to the private sector, where they get higher salaries in return for their employer controlling their research. In any case, it's not fair to change the bargain retrospectively. The promise of being able to patent and otherwise profit from their research is part of the bargain in the existing status quo, and an important part of that bargain.
  - throwaway1979 13y ago
    That's the model of industrial labs. You get a salary. IP is owned by the company. Wouldn't it be awesome if there was some institution (a University is a perfect example), which similarly pays its researchers a salary (sure, it should match the private sector salaries) and the resulting IP is public domain. Heck, it would promote the private sector to devote more resources to research ... if the private sector made a discovery, they could patent it and get exclusivity. If a University did it, it belongs to everyone.

gcr 13y ago

Why would that be important? Many professors conduct research that they wish to commercialize in their startups/side companies.