Anyone interested in this thread should perhaps attend the seminar, "lnventing to transform lndia" being organized by "The National Academy of Sciences, India" and "lntelIectual Ventures" ( http://www.intellectualventures.com) at IITD. Might seem off topic, but one would be surprised with "what a small world!" of invention.
It seems like the latter is sponsoring the activities all around India. Today is the second day. Yesterday it started at 6 PM. Feel free to ask me off the list about the major stakeholders. Cheers, Ajay On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Andrew Lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:02 PM, "Sankarshan (সঙ্কর্ষণ)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ravindra patake wrote: > > > >> In one hand we say that our CSIR research outputs have no use because it > >> always remain in journals none is applied in reality or commercialized > and > >> on the other hand if CSIR is allowing to use something that could be > >> applied, that could be come in reality then why we r opposing the > things? > > > > Umm.. a very bad analogy would be that I (or a large set of I s) invest > > in a house you own/have custody of and now you expect me to pay you to > > use the facilities of the house - at some point in time I need to have a > > return on my initial investment don't I ? > > I think the article being discussed is quite clear in what it says: > CSIR has badly managed its patenting strategy. > CSIR already holds a large patent portfolio - and there was a general > push to recognise scientific innovation by patents rather than > peer-reviewed publications in the years leading to the implementation > of GATT. However - in true Indian style - the number of patents and > not its productivity were what was touted, as a result of which CSIR > earned ~4 crore from its patent holding, and spent ~10 crore in filing > and maintaining them. The proposal of a holding company is to maximise > the profitability of its patents - not just in extracting maximum > profit from existing patents, but also in selecting what to patent. > > Much of the argument on this thread is on the validity of CSIR > patenting in the first place, especially with public funding - the > source of which is conveniently personalised! > Not all CSIR research is publically funded. And very little of it > follows the patent model. The entire leather industry - which employs > 2.5 million people in our country - is empowered due to pioneering > work by CLRI in developing novel technology for tanning, and > transferring it to both the organised AND unorganised sectors. No > industry bothered in investing in the R&D, and no "benevolent > government" passed on technology. CSIR has also recently gone out on > a limb by pushing Open Source into its R&D with the Open source Drug > Discovery program. I hope it works. I work for it. > > A patent is still required for products which scale with industrial > production and have a global market. CSIR is probably hedging its > bets. Patent products that have "value", and encourage unfettered > research in "valueless" products such as leather, and drugs for > tuberculosis and tropical disease. Note that value is determined by > its demand in the global market (read countries with purchasing power) > and not by the social good of an invention. > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > Freed mailing list > [email protected] > http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/freed >
_______________________________________________ Freed mailing list [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/freed
