It was understood that stimulation of the U.S. economy would occur through the licensing of new inventions from universities to businesses that would, in turn, manufacture the resulting products in the U.S.
The entire focus of Bayh-Dole was to stimulate the economy by getting corporations (primarily pharmaceutical companies) to license patents from universities and develop those patents into products (primarily drugs).
The ability to sell my science to Enron when the work is done is a HUGE motivator to spend 20 hours a day in the lab to get it done quickly to get paid quickly
Nice idea, but the scientists don't see a drop of that money - it all goes to the university. So the only motivation the scientist has is fame from publication, which is all s/he had before Bayh-Dole.
Although the Silicon Valley article didn't mention it directly, one of the focuses of the article was the petition Harry Mangalam, Jiaye Zhou, and I started a few months back at Open Informatics.
None of the views of the petition go against any law, Bayh-Dole or other, that's just yellow journalism on the part of Silicon Valley. In fact all NSF and NIH program directors that we've discussed the petition with are all in favor of Open Source. They just feel that because of Bayh-Dole, the can't require that software be released Open Source.
Also, if you want to read the in-depth discussion that we had with Phil Green, take a look at the mailing list archive here, instead of the tiny piece that silicon valley completely misquoted.
In the article, when Harry Mangalam indicated that the current situation creates double billing, he was talking about software funded by public research grants (such as from the NIH and NSF) and he meant two things:
* as a researcher, my taxes go to fund the public research grant that creates the software, and then I may have to pay a license to use the software. That's twice I've paid for the same thing
* And, the public funding agency often pays twice (or more). The first time is when they fund the grant, the second time is when researchers include software licensing fees in future grants.
Slashdot Mirror
not true. Read the law:
The entire focus of Bayh-Dole was to stimulate the economy by getting corporations (primarily pharmaceutical companies) to license patents from universities and develop those patents into products (primarily drugs).
The ability to sell my science to Enron when the work is done is a HUGE motivator to spend 20 hours a day in the lab to get it done quickly to get paid quickly
Nice idea, but the scientists don't see a drop of that money - it all goes to the university. So the only motivation the scientist has is fame from publication, which is all s/he had before Bayh-Dole.
None of the views of the petition go against any law, Bayh-Dole or other, that's just yellow journalism on the part of Silicon Valley. In fact all NSF and NIH program directors that we've discussed the petition with are all in favor of Open Source. They just feel that because of Bayh-Dole, the can't require that software be released Open Source.
Also, if you want to read the in-depth discussion that we had with Phil Green, take a look at the mailing list archive here, instead of the tiny piece that silicon valley completely misquoted.
In the article, when Harry Mangalam indicated that the current situation creates double billing, he was talking about software funded by public research grants (such as from the NIH and NSF) and he meant two things: * as a researcher, my taxes go to fund the public research grant that creates the software, and then I may have to pay a license to use the software. That's twice I've paid for the same thing * And, the public funding agency often pays twice (or more). The first time is when they fund the grant, the second time is when researchers include software licensing fees in future grants.