From phm@a2e.de  Sat Dec 23 10:20:47 2000
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 11:20:47 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] Re:  patent pools enforcing per-copy-licensing mode
 of software development

> > >Why universities in the first place, if they are not to foster free
> > >diffusion of information that benefits all of society?
> > 
> > So I assume Hartmut, that you don't want universities patenting 
> > anything - no biotech patents, no software patents, no hardware patents?
> 
> As you know, I have little problems with technical patents, i.e. patents
> on solutions based on new knowledge about causal relations between natural
> forces and a physical effect.

In any case, the more patents universities apply for, the less they
qualify for public funding.  On the one hand, politicians will say:  
"Look, through the patent system The Market finances research, so we don't
have to use tax money to finance research".  Although I don't agree with
this market-worshipping neoliberalism, I have to agree with the
consequences:  once the universities become businesses, it is no longer
justifiable to pour tax money into them.  Especially if the business model
is based on restricting the public's freedom.  The tax money is then
better spent on directly promoting some public research projects,
independent of particular universities.  It is known among economists
that, even in the pure technical realm, public research projects tend to
be less costly to society than the patent system.

It seems to me that Prof Endres and Prof Mayr are actually pushing the
disengagement of the state from universities.  The last GI conference had
the revealing subtitle "Unternehmen Hochschule" (the university
enterprise), which was apparently chosen in view of the swpat debate.  

I just wonder whether it is clear to the GI leaders that

(a) "university enterprises" don't qualify for public financing 
(b) old professors don't qualify as enterprise executives

-phm





