Tax-payer funded basic research.

[chrismb]

Is it morally right to withhold basic research findings funded with tax-payers money, for an idea no longer under patent protection, for private gain?

[Betruger]

Is it morally right to obstruct, based on incomplete evidence, research that enables major improvements worldwide, to satisfy an ethical technicality that could just as well be satisfied later?

You need to rephrase the last option to specify immediate information release. Or some morally perverse researchers will dare to keep things quiet till there's something to show that can withstand public scrutiny.

[KitemanSA]

Is it morally right to withhold basic research findings funded with tax-payers money, for an idea no longer under patent protection, for private gain?

You seem to be under the delusion that if the government pays a private company to do research, the government automatically gets the rights to the data. In truth, this is SELDOM the case. The company typically owns the data and may patent or not as they see fit, and the government may not disclose said data to any non-government person or even to any government person without need to know. On occasion, the company will require a vicious non-disclosure agreement be signed before a g'mnt employee can see such data.

Indeed, even government employees can patent their own ideas and the sole difference between those patents and any other patent is that the employee can't charge a licence fee to the government. It may be that the government can unilaterally buy the patent, but I haven't run into that with my patents. (If the g.mnt pays the employee to develop and patent, that is a different story).

If the g'mnt wants data rights, it must specifically contract for, and pay for, said data rights. It seldom does. The cost of a project as simple as designing a pump can double or even triple if data rights are involved. How much EMC2 would charge for the data rights to THIS technology might be lowballed at "astronomical".

[chrismb]

You need to rephrase the last option to specify immediate information release. Or some morally perverse researchers will dare to keep things quiet till there's something to show that can withstand public scrutiny.

Should the public have a right to know? Period. That is at any stage. Sure, the researchers might say "Ah! bit busy right now. I will offer to complete your request within 6 months" or whatever, but not an actual refusal.

If the conditions provide the right to refuse until 'completion' then who defines 'completion'? Sounds like a never-never to me. WB7 was 'complete' but then went on. Seemingly we have no right to know about this 'complete work'.

Is it morally right to obstruct, based on incomplete evidence, research that enables major improvements worldwide, to satisfy an ethical technicality that could just as well be satisfied later?

Who decides what is incomplete evidence? Is this not tantamount to saying that those who ask for the information cannot be trusted to understand it? I was meaning this in the context of a Western culture, not a communist one where the authorities tell us what information is good for us to know! People make wrong decisions, but is that any reason to not tell someone, just in case they may make the wrong decision?

[KitemanSA]

And here we see the distinction between a British subject (who thinks the government should get to dictate what the subject does with his output) and a sovereign American (who thinks the government should pay for what it wants).

Or maybe the British subject just means that he believes that all American research contracts should include a data rights clause. If so, I am glad that he is not king of America cuz that is a monumentally dumb idea. Twould kill research almost immediately.

[chrismb]

I'm sorry this is the complete REVERSE of what I am saying. I say that if the tax payer pays for something, then someone else should not profit [exclusively] by it. Government is merely the 'protagonist' in this exchange. It is what the gov are NOT asking for, in the case of Polywell.

EMC2 had 20 years from the filing of their patent to make good on generating commeriality. It would be wrong for them to profit due to their failures but with subsequent tax funded backing to get the thing to work.

Now, the Gov is putting some money in to make a potential project work when EMC2 could not do so. EMC2 released their 'rights' after having the patent publication.

[Betruger]

You need to rephrase the last option to specify immediate information release. Or some morally perverse researchers will dare to keep things quiet till there's something to show that can withstand public scrutiny.

Should the public have a right to know? Period. That is at any stage.

Yep.

Sure, the researchers might say "Ah! bit busy right now. I will offer to complete your request within 6 months" or whatever, but not an actual refusal.

Yep and it's not too far fetched that in EMC2's case that's only a temporary refusal.

If the conditions provide the right to refuse until 'completion' then who defines 'completion'? Sounds like a never-never to me. WB7 was 'complete' but then went on. Seemingly we have no right to know about this 'complete work'.

I'll agree when working PWs are on or near market and there's still no info release. That's the point where they're 100% indefensible. Right now it's not nearly halfway there.

Who decides what is incomplete evidence?

You don't know for sure what you justify as motivation. At this point pretty much everything is conjecture.

Is this not tantamount to saying that those who ask for the information cannot be trusted to understand it? [...]

No, see above

[Aero]

The requirement of disclosure that accompanies government research funds serves to make government funds less desirable than internal funds. The requirements of project control that usually accompanies venture research funds serves to make venture funds less desirable than internal funds.
But, if a company can get outside funds and treat the research project as though it were funded internally, then the company can avoid the risk of loss of the research money, and reap any benefits accruing from the research as well.

In classic terms, they can have their cake and eat it, too. This result is generally frowned upon in polite circles. EMC2's denial of the FOIA request is "not nice," legalities aside.

[GIThruster]

I say that if the tax payer pays for something, then someone else should not profit [exclusively] by it.

Well there's the rub. Everyone benefits from invention, whether they benefit directly and financially, or whether they benefit in an indirect sort of way just as everyone exposed to the technology does.

I love Tang. I don't make a penny from it, but I do love it, especially on backpacking trips. So what's wrong that USG paid to develop it and someone gains exclusive financial benefit from it? I get to drink it and that's enough reason for USG to have paid to develop it.

[KitemanSA]

The requirement of disclosure that accompanies government research funds serves to make government funds less desirable than internal funds. The requirements of project control that usually accompanies venture research funds serves to make venture funds less desirable than internal funds.
But, if a company can get outside funds and treat the research project as though it were funded internally, then the company can avoid the risk of loss of the research money, and reap any benefits accruing from the research as well.

In classic terms, they can have their cake and eat it, too. This result is generally frowned upon in polite circles. EMC2's denial of the FOIA request is "not nice," legalities aside.

Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

By the way, FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal, nicenesses aside.

[KitemanSA]

I'm sorry this is the complete REVERSE of what I am saying. I say that if the tax payer pays for something, then someone else should not profit [exclusively] by it.

Seems you still don't get it. The taxpayer did NOT necessarily pay for the data. They paid for the contractor to do some work. The contractor did some work, period. And the contractor did said work for which they were paid, period. Show me where the contract says that the data then belongs to the government. I haven't looked REAL hard, but I doubt such a statement is there. At most, the government MAY have required that they have licence free use of the data. VERY different things.

Government is merely the 'protagonist' in this exchange. It is what the gov are NOT asking for, in the case of Polywell.

Hmmm. Here you seem to understand that the government is NOT asking for said data. If you do understand this, then what is your beef?

EMC2 had 20 years from the filing of their patent to make good on generating commeriality. It would be wrong for them to profit due to their failures but with subsequent tax funded backing to get the thing to work.

It is not the patented data and conceptualization that is in question here but the data generated under contract AFTER the patent. That is still proprietary data unless the contractee puts in a data ownership clause. And I don't believe either Dr. B. not Dolly G. nor Dr. N. would be so stupid as to agree to such a clause. Fortunately, they seem wiser than you.

Now, the Gov is putting some money in to make a potential project work when EMC2 could not do so. EMC2 released their 'rights' after having the patent publication.

They released the rights to the data that went INTO the patent, not data they generated AFTER the patent. That is still their proprietary data until they choose to release it.

They own it, you want it, they said no. Too bad!

[KitemanSA]

I love Tang. I don't make a penny from it, but I do love it, especially on backpacking trips. So what's wrong that USG paid to develop it and someone gains exclusive financial benefit from it? I get to drink it and that's enough reason for USG to have paid to develop it.

Ha! Someone gets it. What a joy to behold!

And besides, the folks that paid for the development got to use it where it was REALLY needed and not available before. Such a deal!

[Aero]

And as I understand it, although developed by the space program, Tang has never flown in space. (NASA space anyway, maybe the Chinese.)

[Roger]

GIThruster- correct- one cannot FOIA a corporate document. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[vankirkc]

Is it morally right to obstruct, based on incomplete evidence, research that enables major improvements worldwide, to satisfy an ethical technicality that could just as well be satisfied later?

You need to rephrase the last option to specify immediate information release. Or some morally perverse researchers will dare to keep things quiet till there's something to show that can withstand public scrutiny.

Yes.