5 ms·

The logical thing to do is set up a system in which the government invests in projects, and gets some kind of stake similar to equity so it can recoup some of t

The logical thing to do is set up a system in which the government invests in projects, and gets some kind of stake similar to equity so it can recoup some of that tax money for reinvestment (or whatever purpose).

vilya 17y ago
If research is successfully commercialised, then the government is already getting money back through taxes on the company.
- furyg3 17y ago
  What about research that isn't successfully commercialized? It just sits there until the patent expires... If someone gives you money to conduct research or develop a product, it's completely reasonable to expect that they will want to profit directly (not indirectly) when you succeed. In this case, the "someone" is everyone. If a university or researcher doesn't like those terms, that's ok. Just ask someone else.
  - nagrom 17y ago
    Unfortunately in a lot of cases, someone else cannot do the job. And certainly not for the money that is offered by most universities. Go ahead and find me someone who can write C and C++ and Python and Java well, do complicated mathematics, understand quantum field theory/genetics/taxonomy/quantum optics/nuclear engineering/etc., manage large research projects, teach classes of 50-100 students a few times a week (having prepared all the material!) and is willing to do all this 60-70 hours a week every year of their career for $80k-$100k/year, after investing 10+ years of the adulthood in an expensive education. Plus, until you ahve tenure, you can never be certain of a job for more than a year or two, and will need to travel regularly both in the job, and just to find work. Financial firms and large corps. are sucking good researchers out of the university system. For those that are motivated by the material gain available in those organisations, allowing them to exploit a tiny fraction of their work keeps them producing the rest of their work for everyone else. There was a great quote on here a few weeks agoa long the lines of 'There are plenty of scientists, the government just isn't willing to pay market rate.' Allowing spin-off companies and the exploitation of some research is one way that the universities can keep those scientists within the system.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  They get that on a successful product anyway regardless of whether they funded the research (the idea of commercial taxes being that they pay for industrial and fiscal infrastructure including IP enforcement). In other words there's no incentive for the taxpayer to subsidize research on that basis, whereas shorter patent terms or something would bring benefits back to the public sooner than otherwise.
wingo 17y ago
Depends on your premises. Another logically consistent solution would be to have the government invest in research, and allow anyone to use the findings.
- netcan 17y ago
  I like this idea a lot more. There is some subtlety about 'public' vs 'government' involved. As a rule, I don't think governments should be out to make money on behalf of the public. They should be out to convert money into public benefits. Freely available intellectual property is definitely such a benefit.
  - serhei 17y ago
    "As a rule, I don't think governments should be out to make money on behalf of the public. They should be out to convert money into public benefits." Nailing it. This makes the difference between a proper government and a sovereign corporation that, due to a historical accident, you are forced to pay your taxes to.

vilya 17y ago

If research is successfully commercialised, then the government is already getting money back through taxes on the company.

furyg3 17y ago
What about research that isn't successfully commercialized? It just sits there until the patent expires... If someone gives you money to conduct research or develop a product, it's completely reasonable to expect that they will want to profit directly (not indirectly) when you succeed. In this case, the "someone" is everyone. If a university or researcher doesn't like those terms, that's ok. Just ask someone else.
- nagrom 17y ago
  Unfortunately in a lot of cases, someone else cannot do the job. And certainly not for the money that is offered by most universities. Go ahead and find me someone who can write C and C++ and Python and Java well, do complicated mathematics, understand quantum field theory/genetics/taxonomy/quantum optics/nuclear engineering/etc., manage large research projects, teach classes of 50-100 students a few times a week (having prepared all the material!) and is willing to do all this 60-70 hours a week every year of their career for $80k-$100k/year, after investing 10+ years of the adulthood in an expensive education. Plus, until you ahve tenure, you can never be certain of a job for more than a year or two, and will need to travel regularly both in the job, and just to find work. Financial firms and large corps. are sucking good researchers out of the university system. For those that are motivated by the material gain available in those organisations, allowing them to exploit a tiny fraction of their work keeps them producing the rest of their work for everyone else. There was a great quote on here a few weeks agoa long the lines of 'There are plenty of scientists, the government just isn't willing to pay market rate.' Allowing spin-off companies and the exploitation of some research is one way that the universities can keep those scientists within the system.
anigbrowl 17y ago
They get that on a successful product anyway regardless of whether they funded the research (the idea of commercial taxes being that they pay for industrial and fiscal infrastructure including IP enforcement). In other words there's no incentive for the taxpayer to subsidize research on that basis, whereas shorter patent terms or something would bring benefits back to the public sooner than otherwise.

wingo 17y ago

Depends on your premises. Another logically consistent solution would be to have the government invest in research, and allow anyone to use the findings.

netcan 17y ago
I like this idea a lot more. There is some subtlety about 'public' vs 'government' involved. As a rule, I don't think governments should be out to make money on behalf of the public. They should be out to convert money into public benefits. Freely available intellectual property is definitely such a benefit.
- serhei 17y ago
  "As a rule, I don't think governments should be out to make money on behalf of the public. They should be out to convert money into public benefits." Nailing it. This makes the difference between a proper government and a sovereign corporation that, due to a historical accident, you are forced to pay your taxes to.