(B. Everett Jordan Lake Specific)
8 messages
Updated 3/3/2021 11:40:44 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,606 messages
Updated 4/30/2024 9:09:31 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(B. Everett Jordan Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Lifer
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Good news, business as usual!
|
|
Date:
|
2/20/2013 3:25:14 PM (updated 2/20/2013 3:40:40 PM)
|
A new process for extracting energy from coal without any CO2 emissions has been found. See the link below for the full story. It has an Alabama connection in so much as it is to be tested large scale here. The article doesn't say specifically where. It did strike me a as little strange that it will be tested here, when it was developed at Ohio (coal capital of the world) State University. I am certain that Alabama being a right to work state and Ohio a union stronghold played absolutely no role in that decision. (SARCASM /off)
Here's what rubs me the wrong way. The process was developed at a state university with federal money, but the lead professor is looking to patent up to 35 different processes used in the new method. If taxpayer money was used the revenues should go back to the taxpayer IMHO. In the private sector if you develop a new process related to your work the employer owns it and can choose to use it with or without compensating the innovator. My Father and my best friend did just that for the companies they worked for. Each one saved the company millions over the years. They each got an "attaboy". Not saying that is wrong. In fact, I believe it to be the proper response from the company. So why is it that taxpayer employees can profit from the work we pay for other than a bloated salary and benefit package? That is a rhetorical question of course. And for those that would argue that not allowing the profits would stifle innovation and research, I say hogwash!! You want to make a fortune with your research, go to the private sector and raise the money. There are plenty of private equity funds that would pay a fortune for this technique.
And besides, our universities are bastions of liberalism and profits and capitalism are the enemy. Hypocrisy, at its finest.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Good news, business as usual!
|
|
Date:
|
2/20/2013 3:34:17 PM
|
I had the same reaction. The product should belong to the entity that funded the research. In my work we produce many different written products - but if the Government is paying us to produce them then the products are theirs, not ours. We won't even add a "Prepared by (my company):" line on the cover page.
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Good news, business as usual!
|
|
Date:
|
2/20/2013 3:38:44 PM
|
Well Hodja, that is your fault for choosing the private sector and actually producing something instead of living in academia where the only thing produced is inflated egos. :<)
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
It depends
|
|
Date:
|
2/20/2013 3:45:26 PM
|
On the contract they have with OSU as to who owns patents and the rights to them. Many universities have entered into employment contracts that allow the researcher to own and financially benefit from the technology they develop but most have a sharing agreement and some have complete control. If he negotiated a contract that allows him to own and financially benefit from the patents it seems to me very fair. Similar case was a researcher at Wake Forest developed a wound healing technology that was patented and licensed. Both the school and the inventors financially benefited but the school much more so. That technology generated hundreds of millions in royalties and everyone involved was happy.
As for the federal government grant, again if the terms of the grant allow him to financially benefit then I have no problem. Maybe the govt needs to be smarter about this.
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cogent points all.....
|
|
Date:
|
2/20/2013 4:22:47 PM
|
...but my sentiments are that if it is taxpayer money no contract allowing personal gain should exist!!
It is a fact that most universities pay the engineering profs the most because they do create revenue via patents. But this is being done while they receive state and federal money and still tuition skyrockets!! At the very least all such revenue should roll into scholarship funds IMHO. It just doesn't pass the smell test to me. I have an acquaintance that holds several patents jointly with Iowa Sate University. All of them are farm/agricultural related. Still doesn't make it right.
|
| Name: |
Lakewood
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cogent points all.....
|
|
Date:
|
2/26/2013 1:22:46 PM
|
As a tuition payer now shepherding another child through the college application process, one thing has become very clear: state or privately funded, all colleges and universities are engaged in a cutthroat competition for both academic (teaching and research) talent and highly qualified paying students every bit as aggressive as anything that goes on in the private sector. If a university can attract the kind of professor who also generates patents, then they are also attracting the kind of academic reputation that attracts more and better qualified applicants, thereby maximizing tuition revenues. If you want to handcuff your state colleges and universities by rigging the rules so that academic researchers can not benefit from patents they acquire, well, fine. But don't go thinking you can do this without affecting, in the long run, the quality of the researchers who come to your campus.
I'm not against a revenue-sharing rule in which the person who actually invented the patented device or process shares revenue with the institution, but across the country, a different competitive calculus will dictate what institutions and researchers can bargain for, institution by institution, researcher by researcher. Yes, exactly like a private business. Why not?
If UAB has a doctor on staff who is famous worldwide, do you insist that the doctor's salary be capped at modest levels regardless of how much value he adds to the University's reputation and ability to attract both patients and students? Just because it makes some low-achieving taxpayer all envious?
How about football coaches?
|
| Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Cogent points all.....
|
|
Date:
|
2/27/2013 10:47:03 AM
|
You seem to contradict yourself with the first two paragraphs, but maybe I am just an envious low achieving taxpayer.
But since you mentioned it lets talk about football coaches. They, just like patent producing profs, generate revenue for the school, so under your paradigm should they not share in that revenue stream? Envious, low achieving taxpayers might not be able to discern the difference between the revenue streams since they are measured in dollars. One thing this taxpayer understands however, is that the bulk of a football coaches pay doesn't even come form the school, but through automatic endorsement deals that go with the job. But why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
|
|
|
New Post
Search
B. Everett Jordan Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
North Carolina Lakes
»
B. Everett Jordan Lake
Login
|
Home
