• Seraph
    link
    fedilink
    531 year ago

    Let’s be more clear: IF THEY DONT PATENT IT SOMEONE ELSE WILL.

    UCR is fairly innocuous compared to some alternatives.

    • Carighan Maconar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      421 year ago

      That’s in fact why some universities patent their research stuff in the first place, to ensure nobody else can. They’ll then make it a policy to take 0€ in licensing fees, but this precludes anybody else from starting to lock the tech behind money.

      Source: My uni back in the days had a few dozen patents for exactly this reason, too.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        IANAL but patents rely on originality, meaning a preprint of the original paper is basically enough to make the technology impossible to patent. Well probably more than just the paper I guess.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          I learned it too that it has to be “new”. Most likely it is a hell of a lot easier to directly patent it and have a strong legal foundation than just wait around and scramble for proof if it needs to be. Probably also helps being picked up by the industry.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Not anymore. The US switched from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file.” Prior art doesn’t matter for shit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Yep. At max a university will take back its investment amount so that they can operationalize this sort of activity.