[om-list] Public Money, Private Code

[Mark Butler]

Tom,

 First of all, a large percentage of open source software is produced by commercial enterprises that care very much about turning a profit.  Such software is generally produced as an adjunct to some other product or service however.

I do not doubt that the SBIR program is a boon to the companies receiving the grants. It is another question entirely, however, whether the cost of the program to the average citizen exceeds the benefits to the same.  The fact that the SBIR program allows the grant recipient to keep the intellectual property developed makes that highly doubtful.

In short, programs like SBIR (and others by the SBA, etc.) are more like corporate welfare for small businesses (aka state socialism) than a legimate function of government.  The same goes for the Bayh-Dole rules for federal grants.

The sole purpose of government is to exercise a monopoly on the use of force. I do not believe force should be used to rob Peter to pay Paul, unless Paul is in exigent circumstances (e.g. starving to death).

- Mark

Tom and other Packers wrote:
> 
> Mark
> 
>     (In case my dad has time to get into one of our discussions, I'm
> actually sending him an email.  I'm not sure why I haven't in the past.  If
> he's too busy, then he doesn't need to comment.
> 
>     But to get him up to speed, we're discussing the opposing philosophies
> in the computer/software world, which differ in their desire to make things
> proprietary.  One could be characterised as the traditional university
> mentality which wants to make all software free and modifiable and re-usable
> by anyone; the other could be called the traditional business mentality
> which wants to make all software proprietary, and *owned* and sellable or
> licensable by a small number of entities.  Most people I know, like Lee H,
> Mark B, Luke C, Cameron Matheson, and Ben Oman, etc., like open-source, the
> former philosophy which promotes a lot of valuable development by many
> people who are not worried about making money on what they produce.)
> 
>     It takes me time to generate ideas on a new topic, but I'm starting to
> develop an opinion about this topic, specifically the Bayh-Dole act and
> government funded developments.
> 
>     Point one:  The simple perspective, that any product produced from
> publicly-funded research should be open-sourced, would eliminate the SBIR
> (small business innovated research) grant program, which is a big program
> for helping small businesses get off the ground using grants from various
> government agencies.  I think SBIR is a good thing.  In fact, I'm thinking
> of making use of it some day.
> 
>     Point two:  (Enlargement of point one):  There's a reason (a principle
> behind why) the government gives away money to help small businesses: (1) it
> helps the business (get started), (2) it helps the government (produce a new
> tax-paying entity), and (3) it helps the general population (who need or
> want the product of the new business -- it's the third phase of this
> three-phase SBIR grant, along with qualifications for the first two phases,
> that require the small business to somehow indicate a high potential for
> producing something marketable).  If the principle holds for the SBIR grant
> program, who's to say that it cannot hold for other public funding -- even
> *all* public funding?
> 
>     Point three:  (point two extended to universities):  If universities can
> gain royalties from the research they foster, then we have just created a
> very real-world type of criterion/mechanism promoting the survival of good
> universities: those who produce good, marketable work will get more money,
> and will survive to propagate their species.  I would think that this could
> mean that a good university would be less tied to government and public
> money, less dependent on money that carries no wise decision-making power.
> I'm not saying markets are "wise", but there's a good chance that markets
> are more practical, or street-wise than the government, (especially in the
> case of the arts, and all the silly funding we've seen for trash and kitch
> and "modern art").
> 
>     I think the government these days tends to support a disease which
> universities are already too widely infected with, and that is
> multiculturalism.  They support activities in the name of diversity, which
> is often contrary to the stability of conservatism and contrary to the
> healthy growth found in enterprises motivated by real improvement needs.
> So, if the government were willing to let universities act more like
> privately owned corporations, ... ?
> 
>     So, I guess I'm saying that I sort of lean toward the spirit in
> Bayh-Dole.
> 
>     I think there's a philosophy that says that, in a system where
> compensation is more directly tied to the products it supports, the system
> will be more healthy and coherent and integrated, over-all, and in the long
> run.  I think Mark was trying to apply this philosophy to his ISP business,
> so I imagine he will agree with this to some degree.
> 
>     Comments?
> 
>     Should I develop this idea more fully and submit it to one of these
> on-line discussions Mark has pointed us to?
> 
> tomp
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
> To: "One Model List" <om-list at onemodel.org>
> Sent: Friday, 04 January, 2002 09:36
> Subject: [om-list] Public Money, Private Code
> 
> The following article is a great summary of the current state of
> intellectual property treatment in universities:
> 
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/04/university_open_source/index.ht
> ml?x
> 
> Personally, I think the Bayh-Dole act was a mistake. Publicly funded
> research should be released into the public domain.
> 
> - Mark