Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 71, Issue 101
One of the corner stones of a free market is that people have the right to profit from their ideas and own the rights to them. This sytem has served us very well and is a reson why the U.S has lead the world in patents for a very long time. It's essential that we protect patent rights if we want to continue to see the march of progress. If you do reasearch for a company while on their payroll your ideas belong to the company not you, the com[pany own the patent and becomes part of their assets. Some companies these day do nothing more than manage patents and do licencing. I'm not sure how it works with government grants but I would think the public would own the patent if the public pays for the research, not the person who came up with the idea but who knows. If you move all studies, patents and research to the public domain you would see research and patents dry up very quickly, very bad idea. If you can't benefit from them why spend the time and money? What you're proposing is communism - how did that work out? Bob Taylor Message: 3 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:59:39 -0800 From: <zaurak@digis.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <20090130105939.1FEB03AC@resin15.mta.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Rich, As I see it the problem is that the privately funded research becomes propitiatory so what is published and shared is up to the company funding the research. In the case of the Drug Industry they can choose not to release studies that show harmful affects of the drug the spent to develop, Avandia for example. They are simply to invested in the outcome of the study to be trusted to do good science. Results should not be censored, and result should be analyzed by independent people. In the case of energy sources they can withhold data that shows what a competing energy source is capable of providing. It seems contrary to good science, and paticularly in the case of medical research, all studies should be public domain. I think this clearly shows the fallacy that private funding provides and advances science better than public funding. Did the speaker advocate changes in the current funding environment? Erik --- retenney@yahoo.com wrote: From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:54 -0800 (PST) So after attending last night's excellent F.O.S. lecture at the U on emerging solar photovoltaic technology, I came away a little troubled by something that I realized in the course of the lecture. I post this by way of trying to better understand things, so if I'm wrong in what I'm thinking here, please one or more of you correct me. It occurred to me that we are publicly funding (taxes, NSA grants, etc.) university-level research that in turn is being copyrighted and commercialized by the individuals receiving the grants for personal gain. I recognize that their hard work and creativity certainly deserves to be rewarded, but shouldn't scientific breakthroughs funded by taxes become public domain, available to any and all enterprising talent to bring said technologies to market (at a far more rapid pace than could said individual, who certainly wouldn't be excluded, and in fact have a head-start due to his/her intimate understanding of the emerging technology)? Aren't we the venture capitalists in that sense, entitled to share in the profit? Or is the profit that cool new things come to market? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject... /R
Bob said: "I'm not sure how it works with government grants but I would think the public would own the patent if the public pays for the research, not the person who came up with the idea but who knows." And that's all I'm asking here. IF his patent is based on publicly-funded research, that's what troubles me. I have no quibble whatsoever with privately-funded research patents. --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 71, Issue 101 To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 1:01 PM One of the corner stones of a free market is that people have the right to profit from their ideas and own the rights to them. This sytem has served us very well and is a reson why the U.S has lead the world in patents for a very long time. It's essential that we protect patent rights if we want to continue to see the march of progress. If you do reasearch for a company while on their payroll your ideas belong to the company not you, the com[pany own the patent and becomes part of their assets. Some companies these day do nothing more than manage patents and do licencing. I'm not sure how it works with government grants but I would think the public would own the patent if the public pays for the research, not the person who came up with the idea but who knows.
If you move all studies, patents and research to the public domain you would see research and patents dry up very quickly, very bad idea. If you can't benefit from them why spend the time and money? What you're proposing is communism - how did that work out?
Bob Taylor
Message: 3 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:59:39 -0800 From: <zaurak@digis.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Message-ID: <20090130105939.1FEB03AC@resin15.mta.everyone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Rich,
As I see it the problem is that the privately funded research becomes propitiatory so what is published and shared is up to the company funding the research. In the case of the Drug Industry they can choose not to release studies that show harmful affects of the drug the spent to develop, Avandia for example. They are simply to invested in the outcome of the study to be trusted to do good science. Results should not be censored, and result should be analyzed by independent people. In the case of energy sources they can withhold data that shows what a competing energy source is capable of providing.
It seems contrary to good science, and paticularly in the case of medical research, all studies should be public domain. I think this clearly shows the fallacy that private funding provides and advances science better than public funding. Did the speaker advocate changes in the current funding environment?
Erik
--- retenney@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] OT: Science and public funding Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:54:54 -0800 (PST)
So after attending last night's excellent F.O.S. lecture at the U on emerging solar photovoltaic technology, I came away a little troubled by something that I realized in the course of the lecture. I post this by way of trying to better understand things, so if I'm wrong in what I'm thinking here, please one or more of you correct me.
It occurred to me that we are publicly funding (taxes, NSA grants, etc.) university-level research that in turn is being copyrighted and commercialized by the individuals receiving the grants for personal gain. I recognize that their hard work and creativity certainly deserves to be rewarded, but shouldn't scientific breakthroughs funded by taxes become public domain, available to any and all enterprising talent to bring said technologies to market (at a far more rapid pace than could said individual, who certainly wouldn't be excluded, and in fact have a head-start due to his/her intimate understanding of the emerging technology)? Aren't we the venture capitalists in that sense, entitled to share in the profit? Or is the profit that cool new things come to market?
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject... /R
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Not at all. I had to sign a contract with my employer, that basically grants them intellectual ownership & all commercial rights to any processes, devices, or materials that I happen to come up with while employed by them. It's a common practice in private industry. When all accademic institutions get on the same page, it will become common practice there, as well. In the meantime, it's absence is a recruiting tool. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661@comcast.net>wrote:
What you're proposing is communism - how did that work out?
participants (3)
-
Chuck Hards -
Richard Tenney -
Robert Taylor