This story about a patent case related to Bluetooth technology caught my attention this morning. There is a previous case against handset providers as well.
Here’s my problem with it: the research was done at a public university, specifically, my alma mater the University of Washington. In fact, the undergrad in question was in my department at the same time I was there. I think it is counter to the core mission of universities to limit intellectual output with patents. The research was done with public resources. The benefits should be available to everyone. I understand that is simply not how it works but it still seems wrong. I have no problem with people taking their research and profiting. But shouldn’t those that funded the research (the public) profit? Specifically, should university research be limited in any way?
I believe this is just another case of a shell company (Washington Research Foundation) attempting to profiteer after a technology has become ubiquitous. I fear this practice will jeopardize the incentive for technology invention. As a person who has donated to the university and has a strong connection to it, I find it particularly disappointing that UW supports this tactic.
Post a Comment