3 ms·

> Likewise, Google did not create untold billions "out of thin air." Google created untold billions by leveraging NSF-funded research, and the patent which Stan

> Likewise, Google did not create untold billions "out of thin air." Google created untold billions by leveraging NSF-funded research, and the patent which Stanford licensed to them, in the midst of an explosion of new opportunities which was created when the NSF lifted commercial restrictions on the use of the Internet (which had also been built with public funding). You say it as if it was easy. Like they had it handed to them. Clearly a lot of tumblers fell into place, but that doesn't mean the NSF is due a share of the profits. Would you claim Harvard is due a share of Microsoft if it gave Bill Gates a scholarship? > I know Americans like to imagine that even acknowledging the public sector exists is the same thing as surrendering to the USSR, but the USSR doesn't even exist any more, and there's actually a lot of merit in being aware of history and being honest about how economies work. What are you getting at? I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
> You say it as if it was easy. Like they had it handed to them. Clearly a lot of tumblers fell into place, but that doesn't mean the NSF is due a share of the profits. Would you claim Harvard is due a share of Microsoft if it gave Bill Gates a scholarship? A private educational institute giving a student a scholarship is very much not the same thing as a public institution granting monies for research. That isn't to say the NSF ought to receive a share of profits, necessarily, but your comparison isn't reasonable. Moreover, it underlines the point: that the risk of research was socialized (NSF Grant), but the profits were privatized (Google). I think the debate is whether or not that's a good thing. Personally I think it depends on the context but generally I don't think that public grants should result in private profits (at least not exclusively), and it should be especially closely scrutinized if any of the resulting research work is not 100% made available as public knowledge. > What are you getting at? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. He's mocking the "rah rah free market! American Capitalism is awesome!" mentality that he perceives "Americans" (clearly a generalization; I doubt he thinks all, and hopefully not even most, Americans actually subscribe to that view) to have. I can't say I disagree with his point. It's especially prevalent in the software industry, where all the programmers are Jon Galt (apologies to Garrison Keillor). It's an especially amusing thing to see given just how much the software industry is and has been, since its inception, reliant on government for its existence.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>You say it as if it was easy. Like they had it handed to them. Clearly a lot of tumblers fell into place, but that doesn't mean the NSF is due a share of the profits. Would you claim Harvard is due a share of Microsoft if it gave Bill Gates a scholarship? These are two completely different things. A university gives a student a scholarship as a discount on a good the university provides, for which they would normally charge a price. The state funds research as an open-ended investment, and would normally not expect any fixed quantity of money or other assets in return. Since they weren't selling anything to Stanford or Page-and-Brin in the first place, they were investing, and are indeed due a share of the profits.
- therobot24 12y ago
  > The state funds research as an open-ended investment, and would normally not expect any fixed quantity of money or other assets in return. Since they weren't selling anything to Stanford or Page-and-Brin in the first place, they were investing, and are indeed due a share of the profits. You should read the NSF mission and goals (http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp). > Initiate and support, through grants and contracts, scientific and engineering research and programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential, and education programs at all levels, and appraise the impact of research upon industrial development and the general welfare. The entire point of the NSF and other similar institutions is to spur innovation. They aren't investing in the way you state they are, rather they are funding. They give money away to those who they feel will continue to push the field forward. > So, in addition to funding research in the traditional academic areas, the agency also supports "high risk, high pay off" ideas, novel collaborations and numerous projects that may seem like science fiction today, but which the public will take for granted tomorrow.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago

> You say it as if it was easy. Like they had it handed to them. Clearly a lot of tumblers fell into place, but that doesn't mean the NSF is due a share of the profits. Would you claim Harvard is due a share of Microsoft if it gave Bill Gates a scholarship? A private educational institute giving a student a scholarship is very much not the same thing as a public institution granting monies for research. That isn't to say the NSF ought to receive a share of profits, necessarily, but your comparison isn't reasonable. Moreover, it underlines the point: that the risk of research was socialized (NSF Grant), but the profits were privatized (Google). I think the debate is whether or not that's a good thing. Personally I think it depends on the context but generally I don't think that public grants should result in private profits (at least not exclusively), and it should be especially closely scrutinized if any of the resulting research work is not 100% made available as public knowledge. > What are you getting at? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. He's mocking the "rah rah free market! American Capitalism is awesome!" mentality that he perceives "Americans" (clearly a generalization; I doubt he thinks all, and hopefully not even most, Americans actually subscribe to that view) to have. I can't say I disagree with his point. It's especially prevalent in the software industry, where all the programmers are Jon Galt (apologies to Garrison Keillor). It's an especially amusing thing to see given just how much the software industry is and has been, since its inception, reliant on government for its existence.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

therobot24 12y ago
> The state funds research as an open-ended investment, and would normally not expect any fixed quantity of money or other assets in return. Since they weren't selling anything to Stanford or Page-and-Brin in the first place, they were investing, and are indeed due a share of the profits. You should read the NSF mission and goals (http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp). > Initiate and support, through grants and contracts, scientific and engineering research and programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential, and education programs at all levels, and appraise the impact of research upon industrial development and the general welfare. The entire point of the NSF and other similar institutions is to spur innovation. They aren't investing in the way you state they are, rather they are funding. They give money away to those who they feel will continue to push the field forward. > So, in addition to funding research in the traditional academic areas, the agency also supports "high risk, high pay off" ideas, novel collaborations and numerous projects that may seem like science fiction today, but which the public will take for granted tomorrow.