Verily I say unto thee, that The Lost Packet spake thusly:
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
Homer wrote:
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
Universities Patenting More Student Ideas
[...]
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/03/2327255
So let me get this straight, the /inventor/ does not "own" his own idea?
Not when he's technically employed by a university and inventing on
/their/ time.
1. Students /pay/ to attend University
2. Universities are funded by /taxpayers' money/
3. University study is /education/, not "employment"
4. The university's "investment" in resources (of whatever nature),
represents an /opportunity/ for business capitalisation, not some
kind of automatic entitlement. But then, ethically speaking, the goal
of an education institution should be about education, not financial
gain, and should therefore seek subsistence, not profit
5. A person's thoughts are their own. To believe otherwise is to support
the defensibility of selling one's soul
And people wonder why I'm so opposed to patents.
Nope. Still not seeing the logic there.
Well by /your/ logic, graduates should have to pay royalties from their
salaries to the university, after they've graduated, because that
university "owns" the knowledge those graduates acquired while studying.
So what proportion of /your/ salary do you pay to /your/ previous
education institutions?
This proves conclusively that "patents" have zero to do with invention,
it is purely a case of who walks through the patent office door, with a
big wad of cash, first.
for historical example, Alexander Graham Bell vs. Elisha Gray for the
patent on the telephone. Gray invented the telephone, Bell beat him to
the patent office by a mere twelve minutes. Ergo, Bell gets the credit.
Well that just proves my point, doesn't it?
