On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:26:12 -0700, Bart Garst wrote
> >
> > Okay I hate bring politics into our discussion but I'm interested in
> > what others are thinking about 102. On the one hand it will generate
> > more money for the state (something that is *very* needed) on the other
> > hand it gives the state a reason to support technical Intellectual
> > Property, something that I don't really want to see happen. If the state
> > is suddenly allowed to make money off of the Intellectual Property of
> > colleges (why don't the students get this?). They will be *much* less
> > inclined to listen to why software patiens should be done away with. I'm
> > interested in what others are thinking because I'm of two minds here,
> > short term vs. long term.
I voted for this even though I believe all software patents should be
abolished and have serious qualms about licensing something developed with
public funds. One part of my logic is that in the current environment I'd
rather have the state hold the patents and license them, than to have
companies like IBM, Microsoft, etc holding patents. For software patents,
these big companies have huge economic incentive to use their patents against
open source software and small businesses. The state incentive to do that is
much less and citizens can put pressure on the state via the political arena
if they go off track.
> What about looking at this from a business owners point of view?
>
> Sure, prop 102 benefits a university (that already charges students too
> much) but how is this good for businesses? I can see a benefit for a
> large corporation, but what about smaller businesses?
Most of the businesses in California and other states that allow this were
small start-up businesses -- at least at first. Of course, google and others
are now big business. But my take on it is that it is a win for small
innovative business.
> (Quoting legislative analysis)
> "... allowing the state to license or transfer interests in
> technology or IP created OR acquired by the universities ... in
> exchange for ownership interests and securities in a company or
> corporation. ..."
>
> Does this mean that ASU can buy IP, then license it to a small
> business in exchange for partial ownership of that business?
>
> Sounds a bit one-sided to me.
No, that's not how I understand it. ASU would have to develop the technology
(perhaps jointly) and then it would get licensed -- they aren't going to be a
'technology speculator' -- buying and trading work they didn't do. So the
goal is really to encourage and develop exchanges between academic research
and private industry. And that's the other reason I voted in favor because I
believe we need to encourage these interactions between universities and
business. This has a long history of success and I think it encourages some
of the academic world to focus on nearer-term research -- also a good thing.
And, BTW, I would expect most of these things will fail. Of course, failure
is critical to advancing things because it shines light into dead ends...
Of course, as I said above, my true view is we need radical reform of the
whole 'IP' system. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening until some
crises makes ordinary people wake up and care about this stuff. So in the
meantime we have to make things run as smooth as we can...
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)