guy keren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 16 Jul 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > > > > Whatdo you mean? The funding sources are the same as always. The only > > "sold to the industry" that comes to my mind is private ventures run > > by academic staff, but that has always existed. > > if you read the salon article in the URL oron posted in his message, > you'll see exactly what he means - universities selling to existing > companies, things that they have developed.
Oron posted the URL in response to my message you quote ;-) I read the article. I think it misses the point on many counts. E.g. I doubt that UC Berkeley could have made a DARPA project commercial in the 80s. They probably could have kept it classified (I guess the military would not object). I won't pretend I understand the Bayh-Dole Act, but from the article I gather that before that the IP from publicly funded projects could not be used by anyone commercially because the patents were not licensed. Now they can. This is more freedom, not less, or so it seems. This does not contradict my point: whether you are employed by a company or by a university, your employer owns the IP you produce. According to the article, this is the case since 1980 (when Bayh-Dole went into effect). The point of reference is 1980 throughout the article. Nothing new. Concerns about "de-commoditization" existed long ago. Vint Cerf wrote (no pointer at hand, sorry, but I did read it) that the Internet (another DARPA baby) was consciously designed in such a way (fully distributed) that it would be exceedingly difficult for a single commercial entity to gain control over it. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] "IBM is a pretty big company." [W. Gates] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
