Folding Forum

It's called R&D because when you're working on cutting-edge development (D) there is always a lot of research (R) required. Generally there's no clear separation between the two, there's always atleast some overlap. Any research performed is always based on previous research which is based on previous research. etc. so everyone is really basing their findings on someone else's. If it didn't work that way scientists would never figure out anything useful. So even if a company takes the research performed by FAH and develops a product based on it you can bet your ass there was a lot more research that they put into it before developing a marketable product.

flaunt wrote:It's called R&D because when you're working on cutting-edge development (D) there is always a lot of research (R) required. Generally there's no clear separation between the two, there's always atleast some overlap. Any research performed is always based on previous research which is based on previous research. etc. so everyone is really basing their findings on someone else's. If it didn't work that way scientists would never figure out anything useful. So even if a company takes the research performed by FAH and develops a product based on it you can bet your ass there was a lot more research that they put into it before developing a marketable product.

Yes, that's certainly true -- but the fundamental question, as I saw it, was what was being done by Stanford University and whether it could be patented (no, the results go into the public domain) and you're talking about what the private companies do. Stanford does mostly Research (call it R&D) and private companies do mostly Development (call it R&D).

Further, I choose to donate to work that goes into the public domain rather than to donate to something that becomes the property of a single private company.

flaunt wrote:I can understand not wanting a corporation to be able to take the results of these studies done by FAH and patent them so that nobody else can use them, however I don't understand the hostility toward patenting in general.

There was no issues with petents until IP. Look, world of IP is the world where learning is illegal. The problem with patented knowledge is like this.

I have a patent on addition. I catch you using addition. I don't have to say that you've stolen my business secret, it's enough to say that you infringe on my IP. And I'll take whatever I want.

And don't say that addition can't be patented. McDonalds requested patent on sandwich (like this: take some ingredients, do some processes, get sandwich). (However, right now it's alredy impossible to say if patent request is usual or protective.)

flaunt wrote:Patenting exists so that people can stand a reasonable chance of producing a product that makes a profit.

Please back up your bogus claim. None individual or small business can stand legal department of corp.

As Bruce very nicely put it, the reason why I (and I would guess many of us fah and Pande team members) work for an academic project is that the results become immediately part of the community, and contribute to the open source knowledge.

Regarding the credits, Fah contributes with many WUs from which general patterns or observables are calculated. So there is no chance that a result would come from a single WU. If that was the case, no one would believe the result, because it would have to be able to be repeated in other contexts for it to be a general observation. Every one of us puts a lot of emphasis in acknowledging the effort of the entire fah community both in our talks and explicitly in our papers. It is thanks to your contribution that the project has won its reputation in the scientific community.