Hmm… Would a corporate entity accept such a return?
They do, on a daily basis.
How many multinationals invest in r&d for one of their subsidiaries.
The country is investing in something that a subcomponent of it will benefit from, as will its taxpayers and trade balance.
Why does private capital gets special treatment and has requiremets to provide economics return to the owner while taxpayer’s fund are treated like free money to increase returns for the owners of private capital.?
I’m not saying it should.
You’re conflating the definite problem of socializing risks vs privatizing losses with the clear benefit of investment in domestic r&d.
There should be a payback to the taxpayer, and btw, there actually is in that the engineers working those jobs pay taxes.
The corporations MUST pay more taxes, I am 100% on board with that, but don’t conflate that with the overall benefit of r&d investment.
We are literally arguing over something that only exists because the government invested in it to the detriment of phone companies who wanted to keep charging ludicrous rates for leased lines and long-distance calls. You need to get over black and white.
Just recognized your username, nvm, wasting my breath.
Why shouldnt US keep property rights resulting from the research it has funded? License it to private companies for a fair fee?
Why should private enterpise end up with this IP?
Taxapyer is essentially enriching some owners of companies who in return pricr gouging the working population.
But hey some slaves got the jobs and you us getting a factory is “return” enough for you? Doesnt look like our government officials are negotiating these properly imho
First of all, they don’t, that’s how publicly funded R&D works, the IP is shared, or licensed, but the product is owned.
Have you never read about actual patent licensing for places like Stanford and MIT? How do you think those work? The professors license the patents on behalf of the schools and either get a share, or in exchange for grants.
This model works, and has worked pretty well, it’s why we rocked all research for decades.
Yeah no shit, american taxpayer is paying for a lot of base research while not getting any return for their investments beyond jobs and ability to buy products from some rent seeker.
Oak ridge is a partnership with UTK, and one of the few ways to get literate people into Tennessee. Sandia is the same, mostly funded by private corporations or the military/DOE.
Berkeley is too, we got mips and a ton of other stuff out of that.
You’re upset they don’t profit more, then demand a bigger share from licensing!
They don’t demand more because the administrators are corrupt as all fuck, and take small rewards in exchange for selling the larger ones, but even UT has a ton of money coming in from profit sharing, and most decent research universities do.
I’d love to see us cut tuition by making universities more reliant on research and/or alumni funding, they’d end up focusing on things that lead to successful student outcomes.
They do, on a daily basis.
How many multinationals invest in r&d for one of their subsidiaries.
The country is investing in something that a subcomponent of it will benefit from, as will its taxpayers and trade balance.
I’m not saying it should.
You’re conflating the definite problem of socializing risks vs privatizing losses with the clear benefit of investment in domestic r&d.
There should be a payback to the taxpayer, and btw, there actually is in that the engineers working those jobs pay taxes.
The corporations MUST pay more taxes, I am 100% on board with that, but don’t conflate that with the overall benefit of r&d investment.
We are literally arguing over something that only exists because the government invested in it to the detriment of phone companies who wanted to keep charging ludicrous rates for leased lines and long-distance calls. You need to get over black and white.
Just recognized your username, nvm, wasting my breath.
Why shouldnt US keep property rights resulting from the research it has funded? License it to private companies for a fair fee?
Why should private enterpise end up with this IP?
Taxapyer is essentially enriching some owners of companies who in return pricr gouging the working population.
But hey some slaves got the jobs and you us getting a factory is “return” enough for you? Doesnt look like our government officials are negotiating these properly imho
First of all, they don’t, that’s how publicly funded R&D works, the IP is shared, or licensed, but the product is owned.
Have you never read about actual patent licensing for places like Stanford and MIT? How do you think those work? The professors license the patents on behalf of the schools and either get a share, or in exchange for grants.
This model works, and has worked pretty well, it’s why we rocked all research for decades.
Stanford and MIT are private institutions…
Yeah no shit, american taxpayer is paying for a lot of base research while not getting any return for their investments beyond jobs and ability to buy products from some rent seeker.
That doesnt feel very capitalist to me.
Sorry, public universities get into the act too:
https://www.buffalo.edu/tcie/grow-your-business/collaborate/research-partners.html
Oak ridge is a partnership with UTK, and one of the few ways to get literate people into Tennessee. Sandia is the same, mostly funded by private corporations or the military/DOE.
Berkeley is too, we got mips and a ton of other stuff out of that.
You’re upset they don’t profit more, then demand a bigger share from licensing!
They don’t demand more because the administrators are corrupt as all fuck, and take small rewards in exchange for selling the larger ones, but even UT has a ton of money coming in from profit sharing, and most decent research universities do.
I’d love to see us cut tuition by making universities more reliant on research and/or alumni funding, they’d end up focusing on things that lead to successful student outcomes.