|
|
|
|
|
|
by themartorana
4131 days ago
|
|
|
> But it's also true that it's unreasonable to demand that the technology be released freely. I disagree entirely with this blanket statement. In fact, somewhere in this thread you'll find a university researcher speaking to how me eventually got everything open sources, and how certain funding is coming with open-source requirements. We can debate whether or not it's in the public interest for the tech to be released, but it's never unreasonable to consider whether it should be released freely. > Now, realize that the two issues are independent. No they're not. #2 is entirely irrelevant. This is why eminent domain laws are so hotly debated - because fair compensation is often not fair compensation. > Practically, the government is just another investor. There is no investor that invests money in to private enterprise and gets no return when that private enterprise profits. |
|
|
When I say "reasonable" I mean commercially reasonable. There's a certain idealism about academia, which I don't subscribe to, but I'm not interested in arguing about it because it's subjective. What I'm talking about is how an investor or company seeking investment would view an offer in the market.
> There is no investor that invests money in to private enterprise and gets no return when that private enterprise profits.
At the same time, no sensible private enterprise takes investment for part of the cost of developing a product, then agrees to give up all rights in the product in return.
I agree the public should get some return when public funding results in patentable technology. But to say that such technology should be released free-and-clear is to say that the public, as investor, should get all the rights to a product just by paying for part of the development cost.