Talk-Polywell.org

chrismb wrote:

Betruger wrote:You need to rephrase the last option to specify immediate information release. Or some morally perverse researchers will dare to keep things quiet till there's something to show that can withstand public scrutiny.

Should the public have a right to know? Period. That is at any stage. Sure, the researchers might say "Ah! bit busy right now. I will offer to complete your request within 6 months" or whatever, but not an actual refusal.

To which the public should respond, 'Okay, sure. We'll just suspend your funding until you're ready to be forthcoming then.'

If the conditions provide the right to refuse until 'completion' then who defines 'completion'? Sounds like a never-never to me. WB7 was 'complete' but then went on. Seemingly we have no right to know about this 'complete work'.

Betruger wrote:Is it morally right to obstruct, based on incomplete evidence, research that enables major improvements worldwide, to satisfy an ethical technicality that could just as well be satisfied later?

Who decides what is incomplete evidence? Is this not tantamount to saying that those who ask for the information cannot be trusted to understand it? I was meaning this in the context of a Western culture, not a communist one where the authorities tell us what information is good for us to know! People make wrong decisions, but is that any reason to not tell someone, just in case they may make the wrong decision?

If the evidence is incomplete, why is money being spent on it? There are other pressing things to research that do not suffer from this problem. At the end of the day, you have to think of this as if it were your money (since it really is), and question whether you would spend that much money with so little to justify it.

KitemanSA wrote:

Aero wrote:The requirement of disclosure that accompanies government research funds serves to make government funds less desirable than internal funds. The requirements of project control that usually accompanies venture research funds serves to make venture funds less desirable than internal funds.
But, if a company can get outside funds and treat the research project as though it were funded internally, then the company can avoid the risk of loss of the research money, and reap any benefits accruing from the research as well.

In classic terms, they can have their cake and eat it, too. This result is generally frowned upon in polite circles. EMC2's denial of the FOIA request is "not nice," legalities aside.

Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

By the way, FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal, nicenesses aside.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. If EMC2 wants to develop a private energy system then all is well, they just shouldn't be asking the US government to finance that research...and similarly, the US government shouldn't be financing private research either. The disbursement of those funds should be contingent on the research results being in the public domain, unless there is some compelling national security interest in keeping them private..which is not the case here.

KitemanSA wrote:

GIThruster wrote: I love Tang. I don't make a penny from it, but I do love it, especially on backpacking trips. So what's wrong that USG paid to develop it and someone gains exclusive financial benefit from it? I get to drink it and that's enough reason for USG to have paid to develop it.

Ha! Someone gets it. What a joy to behold!

And besides, the folks that paid for the development got to use it where it was REALLY needed and not available before. Such a deal!

I don't believe that financing private ventures is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. Who is to say that the Tang inventors couldn't have produced their drink with private funds? And what is the ultimate benefit to the taxpayer if they have to pay to develop the technology and then pay again to avail themselves of it. It's just silly.

KitemanSA wrote:

Aero wrote:The requirement of disclosure that accompanies government research funds serves to make government funds less desirable than internal funds. The requirements of project control that usually accompanies venture research funds serves to make venture funds less desirable than internal funds.
But, if a company can get outside funds and treat the research project as though it were funded internally, then the company can avoid the risk of loss of the research money, and reap any benefits accruing from the research as well.

In classic terms, they can have their cake and eat it, too. This result is generally frowned upon in polite circles. EMC2's denial of the FOIA request is "not nice," legalities aside.

Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

By the way, FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal, nicenesses aside.

That's fine. The public funding should stop, though, since it's clearly a private project.

KitemanSA wrote: Aero, do you work in the technical field? Are you an engineer or a scientist or something like that? Do you charge more for your knowledge and skills than a McDonald's worker? Why don't you give away your hard earned knowledge? Are you "not nice". I would suspect that pretty much every engineer in the world is "not nice" by your usage; and more power to them!

@KitemanSA What pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Having been bested in debate you resort to name calling and misdirection.

By the way, FOIA applies to "government data" not to company proprietary data. So not releasing proprietary data is quite legal,

As I recall, the FOIA request was for a specific contract deliverable line item, making it a request for government property (information, as in a report). I accept that EMC2 may have included proprietary data for clarity of the report, but to claim that the complete CDRL contained nothing developed under contract but was all proprietary instead, is quite a stretch. It is however the kind of thing that people with limited experience in government contractual matters might do. That is, write excessive proprietary data into the report then when faced with a request to provide a sanitized copy of the report, search for an alternative. In this case, the alternative is to claim that it is all proprietary. And it seems to be working.

vankirkc wrote:
If the evidence is incomplete, why is money being spent on it? There are other pressing things to research that do not suffer from this problem. At the end of the day, you have to think of this as if it were your money (since it really is), and question whether you would spend that much money with so little to justify it.

Incomplete evidence that EMC2's doing what Chrismb suspects.

Betruger wrote:

vankirkc wrote:
If the evidence is incomplete, why is money being spent on it? There are other pressing things to research that do not suffer from this problem. At the end of the day, you have to think of this as if it were your money (since it really is), and question whether you would spend that much money with so little to justify it.

Incomplete evidence that EMC2's doing what Chrismb suspects.

When it comes to public money, this should never be the case. The only guaranteed method of ensuring public resources are not wasted is to force them to be completely and utterly transparent. Where secrecy enters the picture, corruption and waste surely follow.

GIThruster wrote:I love Tang. I don't make a penny from it, but I do love it, especially on backpacking trips. So what's wrong that USG paid to develop it and someone gains exclusive financial benefit from it? I get to drink it and that's enough reason for USG to have paid to develop it.

The US Government didn't pay to develop Tang. It was developed by General Foods in 1957 as a commercial product. It didn't sell very well until they convinced NASA to carry it on some of the Mercury and Gemini flights.

I rather thought there might have been a few takers for the 3rd option.

For those arguing that the average punter, or uneducated politician, may lay into a half-baked piece of work and try to have it canned, or those saying that the tax payer still makes profit by these things even if they don't know the detail, then I still don't see how those can not argue for, at least, equity of benefit in the domestic market place?

KitemanSA wrote:

chrismb wrote:Is it morally right to withhold basic research findings funded with tax-payers money, for an idea no longer under patent protection, for private gain?

You seem to be under the delusion that if the government pays a private company to do research, the government automatically gets the rights to the data. In truth, this is SELDOM the case. The company typically owns the data and may patent or not as they see fit, and the government may not disclose said data to any non-government person or even to any government person without need to know. On occasion, the company will require a vicious non-disclosure agreement be signed before a g'mnt employee can see such data.

It specifically said "basic research" - which is different than product development to meet a contract.

So, I'd say the Princeton Tokamak data should be open, but not the design data for the THEL.

Again, this idea is very silly.

To point out the obvious: if the government insisted that companies share all data acquired at taxpayer expense, they wouldn't sign up to do much research. No non-Communist state will do this because they would then be at a massive disadvantage to all the countries that do fund research leading to private IP.

If you think government shouldn't be in the business of funding private IP, then you can form an international lobbying group and get everyone to sign a treaty saying they won't do it anymore. Good luck with that. But the practice is common, and isn't something particular to Polywell or EMC2 specifically.

TallDave wrote: if the government insisted that companies share all data acquired at taxpayer expense, they wouldn't sign up to do much research.

... and so they damned well shouldn't, to research like that!

I ask again (which wasn't addressed by anyone first time) explain to me why the Founding Fathers of the US had objections to the UK raising taxes for the English war ventures? Such ventures may have brought profitable benefits, so why the objections? No tax without representation? So who is actually representing the taxpayer where politicians likely have vested personal interests in private companies making profits?

Why MUST the tax payer be obligated by law to pay for someone else's profitable benefit? Why can't the tax-payer decide that? it's immoral.

The 21st century is now scarred by the biggest movement of wealth from those that hold the least wealth to those that hold the most. This is a mechanism that is now on the increase. It is a disgrace and augers the end of the Western culture, IMHO.

As I said, then petition your government to stop the "immoral" practice. That's about all the time I'm going to waste on this nonissue.

I ask again (which wasn't addressed by anyone first time) explain to me why the Founding Fathers of the US had objections to the UK raising taxes for the English war ventures? Such ventures may have brought profitable benefits, so why the objections? No tax without representation? So who is actually representing the taxpayer where politicians likely have vested personal interests in private companies making profits?

Different time, different place. I believe I've said in this forum before that probably all the people in what is now the UK, US and Canada from that time would have revolted under the current taxation levels. Their expectations regarding taxation and government services were quite different.

As for politicians with vested personal interests - which Congressman or Senator has a vested interests in EMC2? Apart from very generally - ie. it's a business/industry in his/her electoral district (riding). And then - don't people normally elect Congress/Senate/Parliament members to get jobs and economic development into their local area? Isn't there a kind of incipient district vs. district competition in the Anglo-American model of democracy?

If you take a look at the history of industry and history of technology, you'll see that government economic development funding has been widespread and often leads to privately owned businesses and public corporations making a profit - yet it's often been supported by the people because they get jobs.

in my own concept, if the government is spending money on something, it should be considered "partner" in the company. Think of the government as a shareholder. I think its simple as that.

to what kind of things do shareholders have rights when when investing in private research?

if you are not happy with those terms, go try to get your funds from the private sector.

thus, when research is completed, the government will receive a share of all the profits made building/selling Polywell reactors (nationally and internationally)