• Seraph
    link
    fedilink
    513 months 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
      403 months 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.

      • @Miaou
        link
        English
        33 months 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.

        • @oyo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          93 months ago

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

        • @Nithanim@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          53 months 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.

      • @stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

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