Re: [News] MIT Buys Monopolies Using Other People's Work

["Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hadron wrote:
> The Lost Packet <jmthelostpacket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> > > Ezekiel wrote:
> > > > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > news:zrSdnQo2z5vhkf_UnZ2dnUVZ8rSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Ezekiel wrote:
> > > > > > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > news:S_udnSlnKZPBmP_UnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > Ezekiel wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:PLKdnXotOd1tnf_UnZ2dnUVZ8tLinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > The Lost Packet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > The Lost Packet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > Employed by a university? That's a novel interpretation of
> > > > > > > > > > > the learning process.
> > > > > > > > > > it's part of the student contract, and it's perfectly
> > > > > > > > > > legal. If you're
> > > > > > > > > There atre lots of things that are "perfectly legal". That
> > > > > > > > > doesn't make them morally right.
> > > > > > > > But this isn't one of those things. If someone is hired by and
> > > > > > > > works for a company. And that company pays the persons salary
> > > > > > > > and provides them with the tools (computers, labs, etc) that
> > > > > > > > enables them to invent something. Then anything that the person
> > > > > > > > invents while working for the employer belongs to the
> > > > > > > > company.... and not the person.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's insane to think that if a company like Pfizer spends
> > > > > > > > millions in research and building a state-of-the-art laboratory
> > > > > > > > that when some researchers invents a new drug... on their
> > > > > > > > dollar working on company time, it's ridiculous to think that
> > > > > > > > the invention "belongs" to the person and not the company that
> > > > > > > > financed the discovery of the drug.
> > > > > > > All well and good but universities and schools are not companies.
> > > > > > In most ways they are. They are in the /business/ of education
> > > > > > and many of these schools make billions of dollars in tax-free
> > > > > > income. And they don't have to pay property tax on their
> > > > > > land/buildings either in most states. Check out the massive
> > > > > > stockpile of cash that a school like Harvard University has. It
> > > > > > enough to put most "companies" to shame. Education can be a very
> > > > > > lucrative and profitable business.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other than that most larger universities do have a "research
> > > > > > center" or whatever they want to call it. They employ doctors and
> > > > > > scientists and function just like a normal private sector company
> > > > > > would.
> > > > > See Homer's reply. Educational institutions are not
> > > > > companies. Students are not employees.
> > > > I couldn't care less what Homer's ridiculous point of view is. The
> > > > very fact that universities are grabbing patents and attempting to
> > > > profit from them shows that they are indeed functioning like a
> > > > company. Education is a big business and these "companies" function
> > > > and act just like a company. They grab patents in order to generate
> > > > additional revenue.
> > > >
> > > > You keep claiming that they shouldn't do this (take patents)
> > > > because that's what a company would do and claim they're not a
> > > > company. Well... the fact that they behave exactly like a
> > > > corporation pretty much makes them a corporation doesn't it?
> > > And the fact that educational establishments are funded by the
> > > taxpayer should mean that they shouldn't act like companies.
> > actually, if you do some digging around your local college you'd find
> > that they are funded more and more by corporate sponsorship, student
> > fees and patent licensing than by taxes.
> This has been pointed out to him many times. As was that fact that R&D
> costs considerable amounts of money and is WHY SW which results from this
> should NOT be handed willy nilly to ones competitors. Phil lives in the
> land of "Da Lick". It's a strange place. but I think it involves the
> tops of Toads heads or something.
Who said sw should be "handed willy nilly to ones competitors?" You're 
really making an ass of yourself on a regular basis with this basic 
reading comprehension issue of yours. As has been pointed out to you 
several times, that would be impossible with existing copyright laws, 
which are more than adequate protection for any software project.