Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Patents

Removing Obstacles on Joint Research 72

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the playing-nice dept.
Mark_Uplanguage writes "The New York Times is reporting that a conglomeration of 7 universities and 4 industry partners have agreed to open up software created out of industry funding. From the article: 'The tone was set, Ms. Mitchell said, by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allowed universities to hold the patents on federally funded research and to license that intellectual property to industry [...]The guidelines and framework for the agreement will [be] posted this week at www.ibm.com/university, and at the Kauffman foundation's site, www.kauffman.org.' It's nice to see people sharing again."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Removing Obstacles on Joint Research More

Removing Obstacles on Joint Research

Comments Filter:

  • Link to the proposal... (Score:5, Informative)

    by MLopat ( 848735 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:33PM (#14294266) Homepage
    Here's a link [kauffman.org] to the story from Kauffman's Website.

    The part that concerns me about this effort is the wording... "Specifically, the companies and universities agreed: * That intellectual property arising from selected research collaborations will be made available free of charge for commercial and academic use."

    Its the idea that selected research will be available. Any research with *any* sort of monetary benefits will likely not fall under the scope of this program. So while this may perpetuate the research aspects of these IP's, its unlikely that industry will benefit, and thereby very unlikely that end consumers will see any benefit to this agreement.

    • Re:Link to the proposal... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Any research is good research. Nobody set out to make penecilin, it was just sort of discovered. And if you look to the history of invention, its usually the product of unrelated research. Any agreement that helps research is good for everyone. Aswell, given that the US economy is suffering due to lack of research, this should simply be embraced.

      QED
      • And if you look to the history of invention, its usually the product of unrelated research.

        (John Cleese's voice:) Would Rutherford have split the atom if he hadn't tried? Would Einstein have ever hit upon the theory of relativity if he hadn't been clever? Would Marconi have invented radio if he hadn't, by pure chance, spent years working on the problem?

        • Except, of course, for the fact that Marconi stole all of his ideas from Bose -

          THE WORK OF JAGADIS CHANDRA BOSE: 100 YEARS OF MM-WAVE RESEARCH
          D.T. Emerson
          1997 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Symposium Digest, Volume 2 pp. 553-6

          National Radio Astronomy Observatory

          Just one hundred years ago, J.C. Bose described to the Royal Institution in London his research carried out in Calcutta at millimeter wavelengths. He used waveguides, horn antennas, dielectric lenses, various polarizers and even semiconductors at

    • More likely... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      since they reference the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, and the patent term prior to 1995 was 17 years from grant or 20 years from application, they're just talking about making available stuff where the patents have expired anyway, but trying to get good PR for doing so. i.e. stuff prior to 1985 or 1988.
      • What the hell are you talking about? Bayh-Dole became law in 1980. It's still the law today, and it is at the heart of patentability of inventions made by federally funded schools.
        • are you reading?

          Yes, it became law in 1980. I pointed out that patents falling under that law dating from 1980 through 1985 or 1988 are now expired.

          You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

          • No, your post implied that we were only talking about inventions from 1980, as though Bayh-Dole was a one time thing. Furthermore, you're likely wrong, even while backtracking. They can't license patents that have expired, and there are likely other sorts of rights, e.g. copyrights and trade secrets, which are involved in this as well.

            The only reason Bayh-Dole was even mentioned in the article was because it was a large part of how we got to the current situation where schools concentrate heavily on commerc
      • Not only that -- I was also seriously disappointed to read this wasn't an article about removing the drug laws so that researchers could finally determine whether driving stoned was more or less likely to end up with you in an accident. Or at a KFC, or something. What was I saying?
  • in India?

  • /. sold out (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    day pass? wtf is this, salon.com?

  • Scam (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:35PM (#14294283) Homepage Journal
    Can someone please explain to me any way in which this is not a big rip-off of the American taxpayer?

    Also, is there some reason that this doesn't story doesn't link to an article somewhere?

    -Peter
    • Wonderful, they've linked to an ad for a story.

      Anyway, this is all phrased in a hopeful, upbeat way. "Oooh! We're sharing!" But I don't see how any policy other than putting the fruit of taxpayer funded research in the public domain is legitimate.

      -Peter

    • Re:Scam (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stupidfoo ( 836212 )
      1. Mega Corp gives much needed $ to University research department
      2. University researchers and grad students do research and gain knowledge and experience
      3. Mega Corp gets research results
      4. Profit
      5. GOTO 1
      • the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allowed universities to hold the patents on federally funded research and to license that intellectual property to industry


        Maybe I'm hazy on what "federally funded" means.

        -Peter

      • Re:Scam (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bit01 ( 644603 )

        Correct as far as it goes but you've missed a bit:

        Mega Corp gets extra research results partly subsidized by taxpayer funding.

        Not saying that you're wrong here, just that it's very important in any arrangement that involves taxpayers' money that you identify all the costs and benefits.

        Unfortunately, in any mixed private/public funding scenario it's all too easy to engage in dodgy accounting practices, everything from company tax avoidance to free advertising to biased education to academic feather ne

    • Re: Scam (Score:3, Informative)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 )
      > Can someone please explain to me any way in which this is not a big rip-off of the American taxpayer?

      Someone mentioned the Kaufmann site [kauffman.org]. There is a link to a PDF called "Open Collaboration Principles" there, and though the wording is obtuse in several places, it sounds like it's actually a good deal. For example, the "be made available free of charge for commercial and academic use" is expanded to "be made available free of charge for commercial and academic use by any member of the public free of ch
      • Ooops. Close the bold tag after the word "software".
      • At best that is functionally adequate, but the wrong thing to do. I'm a big fan of Free Software*, but if the government pays for it, it should go into the public domain.

        Also, preview makes it obvious when you miss a </b> tag ;-)

        -Peter

        *and "Open Source" to the extent that it is also Free Software.

    • Re:Scam (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Daniel_Staal ( 609844 ) <DStaal@usa.net> on Monday December 19, 2005 @06:12PM (#14294592)
      The idea behind allowing private companies to buy the patents on federally funded research came from the fact that there were so many projects with great ideas, and very few actually turning into products that people could use. So, a law was passed to let companies get patents on the ideas; then they would have the field to themselves for a little while, and could (therefore) hopefully have an incentive to actually look at the ideas, and turn them into real products.

      It all sounded nice, and like it should work.

      What's actually happened is now every research idea gets a patent by some big company, which then ignores it just as they did before. Only now there's a patent saying everyone else has to ignore it as well...
      • i think its worse than you make out. if i were a graduate student at
        a university, previously i could publish my results and my source code
        however i wanted.

        now however, there are a group of university ip people sniffing around
        trying to find out what of my work they can patent in the name of the
        university.

        many professors are complicit in this arrangement, because they are
        in a great position to buy the patent outright from the university
        for a nominal fee and start a venture of their own...another activity
        that
        • the proper libertarian response would be to burn that motherfucker's house down after nailing his doors shut.
        • Doesn't your friend automatically own the copyright to whatever he wrote? How can they just take it?

        • It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate propert

    • Re:Scam (Score:2, Informative)

      by 70Bang ( 805280 )


      Actually, this could have some bearings upon something else: the SBIR [sbirworld.com]/STTR programs put together by the National Science Foundation [nsf.gov]. IIRC, when granted, you own the rights to the technology whilst dealing with the gov't and keep the product when you're finished [as does the gov't]. The gov't creates a wish list of products, you follow the guidelines you've submitted, and wait to find out if you have won the grant [or not].

      Grants, trademarks, etc. belong to the company performing the work but the gov't

  • About time! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:35PM (#14294288)
    What this modern world needs is some better skunk.

    • What this modern world needs is some better skunk.

      You're joking !
      the only thing better comes in hypos, and I don't go there.

      Last time I had some skunk I stopped breathing (diaphragm got stoned) - I had to have a cigarette just to kickstart my lungs again !

      Good stuff !

      BTW, I have never felt more like an exhibit than while in Amsterdam. I got wrecked in a cafe, then sat out on the street with all the tourists walking by gawping. Strangely, I had an intense urge to hurl shit at them :)

  • joint research (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:36PM (#14294293)
    i've been researching joints for many years, the only obstacle ive come across are the cops. (except the ones i buy from.)

  • Damn! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Skip Head ( 262362 )
    I thought it was about testing joints!
  • he said research..hah...heh

  • Some suggestions (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:42PM (#14294347) Homepage Journal

    Removing Obstacles on Joint Research

    First make sure you have a clean surface to roll on.

    Ensure all twigs and seeds are removed from the pot.

    Grind it up to a nice fine consistency.

    Don't lick the paper too much or it'll get soggy.

    • Re:Some suggestions (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you grind overly fine, I think you'll find you either end up with a handrolled joint that leaks too much or a machine-rolled one that's too dense and doesn't draw well.

      I'd keep it a little on the coarse side.

  • I agree (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by JofCoRe ( 315438 )
    We definitely need to remove some of the obstacles for researching joints. There needs to be much more research done in that area to clear up some of the BS propoganda that was created for us in the Anslinger/Hearst days.

    The obstacles must be removed so real scientific research can be done on joints.

    I would like to volunteer for this research as well.
  • As I understand the situation (IANAL), one of the most important tests for "fair-use" of protected IP is whether profit is involved -- if you make a profit on someone else's IP, you can't claim fair-use. If university research is for profit, then it seems to run risks of not being able to make fair use of other's IP.

    Arguments regarding whether patents, in general, are good or bad aside (see other posts in this thread, I'm sure), I wonder if university research can have it both ways -- both assert restric

    • Re: Is university research "fair-use" anymore? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @05:56PM (#14294447)
      > As I understand the situation (IANAL), one of the most important tests for "fair-use" of protected IP is whether profit is involved -- if you make a profit on someone else's IP, you can't claim fair-use.

      That's not correct. Otherwise bootlegging would be perfectly legal, so long as you gave it away instead of selling it. And conversely, you wouldn't be able to sell a newspaper that quoted someone's book, even if proper attribution was given.

      Beyond that, there's a sort of war on the fair use doctrine going on in the USA anyway, as part of the general shift in IP law that the *AA has been pursuing.
    • First, profit is only considered when determing damages. You can violate someone's copyright without earning a cent. Second, fair use only pertains to copyright law specifically, not patents. There really is no fair use of patents. If you violate a patent then you risk large sums of money in damages and there is really no excuse other than to try to invalidae the patent or prove you aren't violating it in the first place. You can't claim you violated it but only for research purposed.
  • rights violations.

    -------

    [Pedro is having a panic attack after smoking Man's dope]
    Man Stoner: Here, man, mellow out. Here, take this
    [Pedro swallows the capsule]
    Man Stoner: No, wait a minute don't take that.
    Pedro: [Worried] Hey, man; what was that shit you gave me?
    Man Stoner: Man, that was the most acid I ever saw anyone take at one time, man.
    Pedro: [panicing] Acid! Man, I don't mess with that shit, man. A guy in my neighborhood took some
    once, his head swelled up and everything, man!
    M

  • Proof patents are harmfull (Score:3, Interesting)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Monday December 19, 2005 @06:20PM (#14294654)
    This is proof that patents hinder collaberation in a way that causes more harm than good, rather than incentivize creation as is the party line.

  • ...but the good stuff isn't going to be opened up. They get to select what they will release to the public. This is nice for an optimist, but in reality, exciting new stuff will still take time to trickle out into the market. On the bright side, those 11 organizations are 11 of the best out there, so whatever does end up coming out from them ought to be totally worth it.
  • A good first step would be to make hyperlinks clickable...

  • Obviously you should conduct your research into joints somewhere away from the sight of prying law enforcement officers, as they will gladly be an obstruction to your joint research.
  • Oops! I thought this had to do with the previous Slashdot article, "Testing Drugs on India's Poor."
  • This was the interesting juxtaposition of slashdot titles in my Google homepage:

    Removing Obstacles on Joint Research
    Testing Drugs on India's Poor
  • are stems and seeds...

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close