On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Hans Falk Hoffmann
Hans.Falk.Hoffmann at cern.ch wrote:
What about privately funded research results? They are not so different.
If patented they move into the public domain only after about 20 years of
privileged use. Society could debate different (shorter)
. Hans F. Hoffmann
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of R.
Stephen Berry
Sent: 11 February 2012 12:31
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Paul Uhlir
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Nice blog post on OA
Â
Dear Paul,
Â
          Â
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Hans Falk Hoffmann
hans.falk.hoffm...@cern.ch wrote:
What about privately funded research results? They are not so
different. If patented they move into the public domain only after
about 20 years of privileged use. Society could debate
Dear Paul,
Scientific information is a very special kind of public good. In
general, the value of public goods does not decrease as the goods are used.
With scientific information, the value increases with use, so there is a very
strong positive feedback that makes open distribution
A HAPPIER ENDING: UNBUNDLING QUALITY CONTROL
Mike Taylor's allegory is brilliant. But its pessimistic ending is not
inevitable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/10/parable-farmers-teleporting-duplicator?CMP=twt_gu
The distributors (journals) performed two functions in the
Dear Paul,
Scientific information is a very special kind of public good. Â In general, the
value of public goods does not decrease as the goods are used. Â With scientific
information, the value increases with use, so there is a very strong positive
feedback that makes open distribution of
A HAPPIER ENDING: UNBUNDLING QUALITY CONTROL
Mike Taylor's allegory is brilliant. But its pessimistic ending is not
inevitable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/10/parable-farmers-teleporting-duplicator?CMP=twt_gu
The distributors (journals) performed two functions in the
Hi Stevan
While it is nice to be agreed with, perhaps you are thinking of somebody else
in your third paragraph? I don't recall being part of the debate recently.
Best wishes
David
On 11 Feb 2012, at 14:31, Stevan Harnad wrote:
A HAPPIER ENDING: UNBUNDLING QUALITY CONTROL
Mike
Apologies, David (and Steven): I meant Steven Pinfield, not David. -- SH
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Prosser
david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk wrote:
Hi Stevan
While it is nice to be agreed with, perhaps you are thinking of somebody else
in your third paragraph? Â I don't recall being
Not bad, except in economic terms, food is a private good (it is rivalrous and
can be excluded, and can only be consumed only once), whereas
publicly-funded research results (articles, data) on digital networks are
public
goods (they are non-rival and difficult or inefficient to exclude, since
10 matches
Mail list logo
