4 ms·

Just pointing out that the reality is more complicated. The research wasn't "publicly available", rather it was licensed (exclusively) from Stanford. There is

Just pointing out that the reality is more complicated. The research wasn't "publicly available", rather it was licensed (exclusively) from Stanford. There is legislation that applies to the ownership of federally funded research, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act It's also worth pointing out that before this was passed in 1980 federally funded research was typically owned by the gov't.

adventured 12y ago
The research is publicly available. You can go read it right now and learn from it. You're confusing the difference between the research they did being publicly available, and Stanford holding a patent on PageRank. http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf
- makomk 12y ago
  The paper is publicly available, but we're not allowed to implement the system they designed in their research because it's patented. The cost of developing PageRank was paid for by the government, but the rewards - a Government-granted monopoly on the use of it and all the income from licensing it - went entirely into private hands.
  - byEngineer 12y ago
    The same is true with public schools. You went to public school learnt how to write and read, maybe how to code and now all of that is monetized by you in your private hands!!! Oh horror!!!
- saraid216 12y ago
  The entire point of a patent is to make it publicly available while funneling money to the patent holder (who is presumably the inventor). That's the entire point. That's why the patent system exists. To say something is patented is the same as saying it's publicly available.
  - cafebeen 12y ago
    The point of a patent is to exclude others from using intellectual property, not to make it "publicly available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects To quote the supreme court: "A patent is not the grant of a right to make or use or sell. It does not, directly or indirectly, imply any such right. It grants only the right to exclude others." The point is to provide some temporary protection for inventors in exchange for public usage once the patent has expired.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      That's the point from the inventor's perspective, yes. If an inventor wanted it publicly available, she'd just publish it. That's generally how science happens. For an inventor, a patent is a way to guarantee ownership of proceeds. A government, however, doesn't actually care if the inventor gets paid. The government provides a patent office in order to make inventions public. In return, it provides what the inventor wants: a way to defend ownership. Notice that you cannot patent something without making it publicly available. It's not possible. If exclusion from intellectual property was the only goal, this would not be true. You should be able to register your invention with the government and reference it in court, only divulging its details when the facts of the case demand it.
      - cafebeen 12y ago
        Is something "publicly available" if you can be sued for using it? That's the case for patented material for the 20 years before it expires. There's a difference between the details of the invention being known and it being available for use. In the case of Google, it cost them $300M to license the PageRank algorithm because Stanford owns the patent (despite its inner workings being widely known).
        saraid216 12y ago
        > Is something "publicly available" if you can be sued for using it? Yes. > There's a difference between the details of the invention being known and it being available for use. "You have to pay for it" doesn't equate to "it is not available". You can argue that it's an exorbitant price, but Google is paying for it.

adventured 12y ago

The research is publicly available. You can go read it right now and learn from it. You're confusing the difference between the research they did being publicly available, and Stanford holding a patent on PageRank. http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf

makomk 12y ago
The paper is publicly available, but we're not allowed to implement the system they designed in their research because it's patented. The cost of developing PageRank was paid for by the government, but the rewards - a Government-granted monopoly on the use of it and all the income from licensing it - went entirely into private hands.
- byEngineer 12y ago
  The same is true with public schools. You went to public school learnt how to write and read, maybe how to code and now all of that is monetized by you in your private hands!!! Oh horror!!!
saraid216 12y ago
The entire point of a patent is to make it publicly available while funneling money to the patent holder (who is presumably the inventor). That's the entire point. That's why the patent system exists. To say something is patented is the same as saying it's publicly available.
- cafebeen 12y ago
  The point of a patent is to exclude others from using intellectual property, not to make it "publicly available": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects To quote the supreme court: "A patent is not the grant of a right to make or use or sell. It does not, directly or indirectly, imply any such right. It grants only the right to exclude others." The point is to provide some temporary protection for inventors in exchange for public usage once the patent has expired.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    That's the point from the inventor's perspective, yes. If an inventor wanted it publicly available, she'd just publish it. That's generally how science happens. For an inventor, a patent is a way to guarantee ownership of proceeds. A government, however, doesn't actually care if the inventor gets paid. The government provides a patent office in order to make inventions public. In return, it provides what the inventor wants: a way to defend ownership. Notice that you cannot patent something without making it publicly available. It's not possible. If exclusion from intellectual property was the only goal, this would not be true. You should be able to register your invention with the government and reference it in court, only divulging its details when the facts of the case demand it.
    - cafebeen 12y ago
      Is something "publicly available" if you can be sued for using it? That's the case for patented material for the 20 years before it expires. There's a difference between the details of the invention being known and it being available for use. In the case of Google, it cost them $300M to license the PageRank algorithm because Stanford owns the patent (despite its inner workings being widely known).
      - saraid216 12y ago
        > Is something "publicly available" if you can be sued for using it? Yes. > There's a difference between the details of the invention being known and it being available for use. "You have to pay for it" doesn't equate to "it is not available". You can argue that it's an exorbitant price, but Google is paying for it.