chrismb wrote:the fact I was referring to was That EMC2 stated their restriction came from the Navy. Fact: this was false. Fact: EMC2 has stated it is not interested in holding commercial rights. Outcome: EMC2 lacks probity on what it say.
Sorry to be hard on this (Rick) but it is what has been said.
The perfect example of that was the cold fusion mess. That was funded out of Advanced Energy Projects at the DOE. The Utah people got paranoid and went public before their work was adequately reviewed. Advanced Energy Projects no longer exists at the DOE. We’re not going to let that happen. We’re going to have a credible, independent review, and we won’t prejudge what they have to say.
Hmm, my reading on what was said was that Rick has no desire to jump the gun and release data before it's been properly reviewed. The outcome of such a stunt can wind up pigeonholing you into the cold fusion arena of non-play. EMC2 refuses to release info citing commercial concerns. If EMC2 were to release unready data, future funding could well wind up in jeopardy. That seems like a commercial concern to me.
As for your fact about being uninterested in holding commercial rights:
My previous research at LANL (POPS for instance) was always public domain. The reason we did it that way is because we figured that the patents would run out before we could commercialize it and the benefits of having it critiqued outweighed the drawbacks of getting "scooped". I still feel that way, but I have a little different responsibilities at EMC2. We have a responsibility to get this technology developed in a timely manner and I also have a responsibility to look after the interests of our employees and the corporation.
That doesn't sound like what you are suggesting.