Even though scientific inventions are not, in principle, allowed to be protected by patents, there is still an increased propensity to patent very fundamental inventions. Thus, in practice, the divide between science and technology is very blurred when it comes to patent policy. This comes partly from national policies encouraging universities to patent their scientific findings. For example, the US Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 encourages universities to patent their scientific findings and discoveries, and similar types of policies are now adopted worldwide....However, if the patent system helps certain ends..., it is still about taking very basic knowledge out of the public domain. Basic scientific findings should be kept in the public domain....It is the total openness of basic inventions from universities for multiple exploration paths in the market economy that makes the evolutionary process of technological advance more powerful, and it is from this advance we develop new science. Thus, the increased privatisation of scientific inventions or very fundamental knowledge is bad for the advance of both science and technology....We often hear the argument concerning the 'tragedy of commons'; about how goods and services become inefficient if they are open for all to exploit and use. However, there is also the other side; 'the tragedy of markets' when every bid of knowledge and creative expression become privatised.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/13/2005 09:45:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
