this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
81 points (80.0% liked)
Technology
63010 readers
5072 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In case you were curious how this publicly funded research is going to be turned into private profits.
I don't think UCLA is going to produce retail products themselves.
They could always make the research and processes public domain, so no one person can unilaterally profit.
But that's not what they did, and that's the problem.
Research isn't free either.
Of course not, which is why they're publicly funded. That's the issue. They're using public funds to make private profits.
It's amazing you even have to explain something so obvious.
People gotta start down the road of anti-capitalism somewhere, right?
So how should we make this available to people then?
License and release it into the public domain: research, methods, processes, patents—the whole deal.
Privatizing medicine, even elective medicine, just ensures predation.
I'm not following. Making the results public domain doesn't prohibit private companies from manufacturing for profit.
No, you got it. It's not about prohibiting profit, it's about preventing the exclusive ability to profit.
Think of generic medicines (in the US) versus brand equivalents and how vast their cost difference is.
Which is reasonable in principle, but when they sell the exclusivity, they're and to put that money back into their research expenses.
I'm okay with public money going to funding research projects that become private profit for a limited time. I'm a capitalist system, which is what we're operating in, this seems to be the most effective. Government partially funds otherwise unprofitable R&D, companies make the product, and ordinary people are able to buy it at reasonable prices, and once exclusivity ends, anyone can make it.
That would be great, except in the US, that exclusivity can last for decades, which means entire generations will come and go before it becomes public.
In a better-regulated system where consumers are put before corporate interests, it could work, but the US hasn't been that for a long time.
I think this is pretty standard procedure no? Lots of small companies are spin-outs from universities