mike wrote:
>>> For the life of me, I can't figure out why you think patents should not be
> awarded to whomever is responsible for creating a product or idea. Yes, in
> the case of universities, the credit will probably not be doled out
> appropriately. That is no different than for someone working for a large
> corporation. Didn't we cover this already...life's not fair.
>
The point is not that the credit will be doled out appropriately, but
the innapropiatness of handing universities a state-paid-for patent
in order to dole out as they see fit. For the life of my, I do not
see why you do not perceive a difference.
> Anybody who mediates violent power in order to award me personally is okay
> in my book. Easy Marc, just kidding. With all due respect, I think you're
> just spouting the typical "sky is falling" rhetoric that occurs whenever
> somebody's particular cause is threatened. The Sierra Club exagerrates for
> their causes, the financial powerhouses exagerrate when their monopolies are
> threatened. Most of this is simple except for your involvement. That part
> is perplexing. Why are you so interested in such a petty issue. Do you
> think this will have any consequences for you in 100 years. You and I will
> both be worm food so why don't you just relax and be happy?
>
This is not sky is falling rhertoric. Relax and be happy? You California
pot head. I hope everyone out there does not act like they
are pithed. Is everyone supposed to relax and be happy while institutions
like yours use our own government money against us to run
companies out of business.
You may not be aware of this, but I had an experience with the
University of California where you work .They are trying to licence what
we would argue is an invalid patent that does not quote ten of my
patents as prior art. They spent 5MM on this. This must be one of the
largest project budgets going. Yet I made it worthless from work
in a garage laboratory. However, I do not appreciate the fact that
these people sold a licence to a penny stock firm, which bought the U CA name
for Marquis value, in order to try to float an IPO and potentially
swindle people, including an Indian Reservation and a third world country with water
problems. Not that lawsuits would not be fun and profitable.
Yet I detest the whole sleazy process where you flippantly state
to relax and not worry. Academics scientists call wanting to work with
us but cannot do to the stupid university patent situation which
makes them competitors. They cannot sign a simple agreement to publish
into the public domain, because higher ups will not take responsiblity,
and lower downs have no authority.
We are trying to create marketed technologies
and jobs. U of CA is trying to pawn off snake oil and
interfere with commercial technology development, in spite of
warnings from our lawyers.
Money is fungible. Go ahead and support policies that make R&D investment
unprofitable. Everyone will simply invest in something else and you,
my cannibis smoking friend, will be stuck on the academic merry go round, with no
alternative.
> >>I don't need
> >> to remind you of the nasty "sweat shops" resulting from complete laissez
> >> faire policies.
> >
> >You mean the nasty sweatshops called universities where people work
> >without health, saftey, job security, prospect for promotion, or
> >even benefit of citizenship?
>> And industry is different? What's your point?
>
Secretaries who started at Staples Office Supply when it was a start up
are now millionaires, to give one example. Secretaries who worked
for Harvard the same amount of time are still secretaries. For that
matter , postdocs are probably doing their fitfth postdoc on the
way to utter dissapation. Utter dissapation, BTW, is what happens
to a terminal academic.
>> We're all going to be used and thrown away. It's called life. Come to
> peace with that fact and you'll be a lot happier.
>
Relax and be happy. Take it up the ass like a man.
> Sorry, I'm not particularly hung up on getting respect from outside sources.
> I just have to respect myself. If you need some sort of external
> validation, that's your problem.
>
I meant self respect. To solve the problems without, you first have to
solve the problems within.
> >What is being done for the environment in a technological sense?
> >All the money available to scientists exists in biomedical or computers.
>> True, but solving our environmental problems is not "rocket science" (i.e.
> it doesn't require huge funding to figure out the solution). 1. Reduce
> consumption (i.e. all the disposable "conveniences" and the idiotic pursuit
> for keeping up with whatever is trendy at the time). 2. Control population
> growth (why any thinking person would want to bring children into this
> nightmare of a "society" is a mystery to me).
> Of course, these are impossible goals since the world is filled with
> shallow-minded half-wits. If you think you can save the world, all the
> power to you. In 50,000 years the human species will be history and none of
> what happened today or tomorrow will have mattered.
> Peace,
> mike
OK, let's join ReactX and all hang ourselves over a pit of active compost.
Smile, relax, and give up.
Regards,
Marc Andelman
