[ale] IEEE... Sort of maybe off topic but... Not really...

Tue Oct 4 10:44:08 EDT 2011

Hi

On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 09:38 -0400, Rich Faulkner wrote:

> Jim.......Now you've jabbed a nerve of mine and I completely agree
> with you..."screaming 'mine, mine, mine!' is no longer a viable
> transaction model.  I hope someone figures out a new one soon."  This
> is largely the reason why I gravitated to Linux and a major reason why
> I evangelize it today.  It is at the core of why I feel the way that I
> do about things in the world and of the world; all of which are a
> product of faith.  
> 

+1

> And with that I conclude my mini-rant as I believe according to our
> rules of engagement I stand on the topic's edge....

+1

> Rich in Lilburn
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 09:05 -0400, Jim Kinney wrote:
> 
> > Ron, you just jabbed a nerve of mine.
> > 
> > In the early 80's the rules changed and recipients of federal
> > research grants were allowed to be sole owners of any ideas,
> > patents, copyrights, etc of the public funded work they did.
> > It has been a double edged sword that no longer provides public
> > benefit. The research output DOES benefit but the financial
> > incentives muddy the waters on the quality or scale of the benefits.
> > Classic example: the medical boot worn after foot injury or repair
> > is 3 parts - the supporting molded plastic, the velcro buckles and
> > the sole. Each part was awarded patents and the ensemble got its own
> > patent stack. 
> > The boot costs less than $5 to make but the licenses run the cost to
> > over $30. Now the boot license kicks in and runs it to $55+. Then
> > the usual supply chain markups occur. So we pay $90 for a medical
> > device that used to be 2 sticks, an old shoe and some tape or an old
> > belt. Does the the new device work better than the old one? That was
> > not studied. What was studied was a comparison of no support vs
> > molded plastic support on recovery effectiveness post injury.
> > The same process now drives the research university expansion and
> > much privately-owned works as well. 
> > It is a two edged sword.
> > 
> > I would like to be paid a bit every time someone uses a system or
> > process I set up. Residuals on geek work would be stellar! But I,
> > like most people,  get paid once for my effort unlike writers,
> > actors, inventors, and the like.
> > The world has changed and holding on to stuff screaming "mine, mine,
> > mine!" is no longer a viable transaction model. I hope someone
> > figures out a new one soon.
> > 
> > On Oct 3, 2011 9:20 PM, "Ron Frazier"
> > <atllinuxenthinfo at c3energy.com> wrote:
> > > I only looked briefly at the article, but it sounds pretty
> > disgusting 
> > > that IEEE should refuse to publish public domain papers. I used to
> > be a 
> > > member of IEEE, but never published with them. I don't understand
> > all 
> > > the legal odds and ends. However, as a consumer and amateur
> > researcher, 
> > > I've long felt that the public needs more access to academic
> > papers and 
> > > such. I can't tell you how many times I've been doing research on
> > a 
> > > topic of interest, like alternate energy, and have come across
> > some 
> > > great paper on the topic, only to find it's in an academic
> > database and 
> > > they want $40 - $100 for it. Usually, it's not worth the price to
> > me 
> > > and I just go elsewhere. I think more "open source" academic
> > papers 
> > > would be great.
> > > 
> > > And another thing, our tax dollars fund research at our national
> > labs, 
> > > right? So, if they've come up with a great way to harness some
> > energy 
> > > source (just for example), and I want to use the technology in a 
> > > business, why do they (the national lab) have a patent on it and
> > why do 
> > > I have to pay a license fee to use what my tax dollars already
> > funded?
> > > 
> > > Sincerely,
> > > 
> > > Ron
> > > 
> > > On 9/30/2011 9:04 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > >> Ok...
> > >>
> > >> A LOT of you on this list know me an many of those know my option
> > of Dan
> > >> Berstein. To say we're not generally on the same page would send
> > out
> > >> howls of laughter in some quarters and shivers of fear in others.
> > >>
> > >> All that being said... If what he is accusing the IEEE of is even
> > >> remotely true, we should sit up and take notice. If you are an
> > IEEE
> > >> member of Computer Society member, you may wish to let them know
> > just
> > >> how you feel about this.
> > >>
> > >> http://cr.yp.to/writing/ieee.html
> > >>
> > >> I take what ever Dan says with a really big grain of salt but
> > this
> > >> time... I just don't know. I may have to agree with him...
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Mike
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Ale mailing list
> > >> Ale at ale.org
> > >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > >> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> > >> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > > (PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might
> > want to
> > > call on the phone. I get about 300 emails per day from alternate
> > energy
> > > mailing lists and such. I don't always see new messages very
> > quickly.)
> > > 
> > > Ron Frazier
> > > 
> > > 770-205-9422 (O) Leave a message.
> > > linuxdude AT c3energy.com
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> > See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> > http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo


-- 
Jay Lozier
jslozier at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20111004/97264152/attachment.html