From ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es  Mon Apr 30 04:24:56 2001
From: ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es (Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:24:56 +0200
Subject: [Patents] Re: difficulty vs technicity
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104292354240.8063-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>; from phm@a2e.de on Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:17:52AM +0200
References: <20010429234014.A28006@jl1.quim.ucm.es> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104292354240.8063-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>
Message-ID: <20010430052456.A28913@jl1.quim.ucm.es>

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:17:52AM +0200, PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> Exclusion is only one way of rewarding authors.  Its advantage is that it
> works well together with market economics.  But it doesn't work all that
> well together with information economics. Some recent studies actually
> found that it has meanwhile become an inferior way compared to direct
> rewarding systems.  Like the authors of those studies, I might plead for a
> combination of exclusion and rewarding, offering the author a choice.


Of course, public funded research is necessary. But this is not
anything new. It exists for a long time. The European Union is
expending plenty of money in grants, founded projects, ...
In the US there are similar programs by NSF.

For example, http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka4/tesss/


