I believe that the "public good" clause was envisioned to be a catch-all for circumstances that did not involve essential medicines or software. I still stand behind it, in that without it, the proposal could be too narrow. While it's true that the public good or public interest can be difficult to determine, and I agree that there's a lack of specificity there, it provides a basis for the idea that universities should use the patents they have for the public interest and not merely private gain. The underlying concept is significant, one that I think should remain in the declaration. (That said, I'm happy to have some explanatory text, as we should for each of the points of the declaration, to elaborate more on the public good concept.) <br>
<br>In semi-related news, GlaxoSmithKline announced last night that it is going to form a patent pool and cap prices in developing countries: <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article5728798.ece">http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article5728798.ece</a> <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nelson@freeculture.org">nelson@freeculture.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I think that this plank of the campaign was inspired in many ways by<br>
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, who have done a lot of<br>
good work on that plank in the past. Since I only attended a single<br>
UAEM conference my impressions of their organizational history may not<br>
be 100% accurate, but let's accept it as true for the sake of debate<br>
;-)<br>
<br>
Their original mission was *extremely* specific: to get universities<br>
to license their drug patents under a specific license they had<br>
written called the Equitable Access License, vaguely like a CC<br>
developing nations license but more complicated. Their organization<br>
is truly inspiring, and SFC can learn a lot from them, but as far as I<br>
know no university has ever used the EAL. I understand that they have<br>
broadened their mission after beating their heads against that wall<br>
for a few years. I think SFC has erred in the opposite direction of<br>
early UAEM, by not having a specific ask so that it is easier to claim<br>
some success in the campaign rather than binary success or failure (as<br>
UAEM experienced when they focused primarily on the EAL).<br>
<br>
I think that having a more specific ask could be good, and we should<br>
consider having specific suggestions attached to the public good<br>
clause. However, there can be downsides to being too specific,<br>
especially if your specific goal is difficult to achieve, it can be<br>
demoralizing. We should have both small goals that are relatively<br>
easy to reach and big inspiring game-changing goals. We should also<br>
leave room for pursuing targets of opportunity.<br>
<br>
Finally, free software and essential medicines are specific proposals<br>
that we can start with, while we think about exactly what the "public<br>
good" is.<br>
<br>
Peace,<br>
<font color="#888888">~Nelson~<br>
</font><br>
P.S. Please do not interpret anything in this e-mail as disrespecting<br>
UAEM, I hold them in high regard and they seem to be very effective<br>
activists, even if they do not achieve all of their goals right away.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Matt Senate <<a href="mailto:mattsenate@berkeley.edu">mattsenate@berkeley.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> While it may be theoretically advantages to leave the "public good"<br>
> clause open, in practice it leaves students and organizers without an<br>
> explicit goal. In Universities, establishments of unbridled bureaucracy<br>
> where the status quo reigns supreme, "open ended" means "undefined" and<br>
> therefore unimportant.<br>
><br>
> This also brings up the issue of solidarity. The best way to bring about<br>
> large-scale change for patents will be a universal acceptance of terms.<br>
> If some Universities are profiting from patents while others are giving<br>
> them away for free and for the "public good," what will encourage them<br>
> to continue to freely license? Green paper trumps ideology. We need to<br>
> have a strong case that captures the urgency and necessity of a new<br>
> approach to patents and, most importantly, builds confidence rather than<br>
> mere faith between Universities.<br>
><br>
> The goal here, as I see it, is to confront and work with the University,<br>
> including its faculty, staff, and students. But in what way does the<br>
> fourth requirement help us to work with them? If our demands are too<br>
> far-reaching we cannot be taken seriously, but if they are too timid we<br>
> will fall far short of our ideals.<br>
><br>
> While I'm sure you have good intentions, Kevin, perhaps you should<br>
> consider a more realistic evaluation of what we want to happen with<br>
> patents. Thanks a lot for the history and perspective.<br>
><br>
> - Matt<br>
><br>
> Kevin Donovan wrote:<br>
>> I was one of the backers of this provision at FC08 and am happy we're<br>
>> going to further discuss it. Obviously this is the topic about which<br>
>> SFC is least knowledgeable, but I truly think if we stand for the<br>
>> principles that we do, patent policy has to be one of our targets.<br>
>><br>
>> A little history (from an admitted non-expert):<br>
>><br>
>> In 1980 the Bayh-Dole Act encouraged universities to patent their<br>
>> inventions (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act</a>). Before this,<br>
>> most research scientists released their work for free to be built upon<br>
>> and improved. In response, many schools set up "technology<br>
>> commercialization offices" or something similar.<br>
>><br>
>> Bayh-Dole was built upon the fallacy that more IP protection means<br>
>> more innovation. As everyone on this list knows, that is wrong. There<br>
>> is a lot of evidence that universities have begun hoarding patents and<br>
>> seeking to use them as a source of income - leading to a decrease in<br>
>> collaboration, transparency and basic research<br>
>> (<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080911/0304512236.shtml" target="_blank">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080911/0304512236.shtml</a>).<br>
>><br>
>> In addition, because only a few universities have commercially viable<br>
>> breakthroughs, these departments for commercializing inventions by<br>
>> professors or grad students have become a net cost for schools<br>
>> (<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080115/013002.shtml" target="_blank">http://techdirt.com/articles/20080115/013002.shtml</a>). Boldrin and<br>
>> Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" has a lot of this research<br>
>> and a recent article in Nature shows that biotech scientists are<br>
>> waking up to this<br>
>> (<a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-36.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-36.html</a>)<br>
>><br>
>> So what's happening is that patents, used strategically, are<br>
>> increasing the cost of research and innovation. This is happening at<br>
>> universities whose express mission is to spread and expand knowledge.<br>
>><br>
>> SFC is in the unique position of being stakeholders in this debate. We<br>
>> pay these schools and if patents are losing money for the school or<br>
>> harming its mission, we should be heard. There is also the social<br>
>> justice side of this that Brian Rowe can speak to.<br>
>><br>
>> As for the definition of "public good," I'm personally not too<br>
>> bothered that it is open-ended. It allows chapters to enter a<br>
>> discussion with their university about how to use their patent<br>
>> reserves - non-enforcement? nominal fees? no more patenting?<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Kevin Driscoll<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:driscollkevin@gmail.com">driscollkevin@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:driscollkevin@gmail.com">driscollkevin@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Matt,<br>
>><br>
>> This is definitely the one that we tangled with the most back in<br>
>> October. I readily admit my general ignorance about the history of<br>
>> this topic but others made convincing arguments for its inclusion.<br>
>><br>
>> What are some good past cases that we can examine and use for<br>
>> reference?<br>
>><br>
>> When have universities failed to wield the patent privilege<br>
>> responsibly?<br>
>><br>
>> When has the "public good" (however you choose to define it) been<br>
>> damaged, weakened, or not improved because of a university-owned<br>
>> patent?<br>
>><br>
>> Big thanks for bringing this one back to the table!<br>
>> Kevin<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Matt Senate<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:mattsenate@berkeley.edu">mattsenate@berkeley.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mattsenate@berkeley.edu">mattsenate@berkeley.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> > Hey all,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The name is Matt Senate, Free Culture undergrad at UC Berkeley.<br>
>> Some of us<br>
>> > have been discussing the ambiguity of the fourth requirement for<br>
>> an "Open<br>
>> > University":<br>
>> ><br>
>> > 4. If the university holds patents, it readily licenses them for<br>
>> free<br>
>> > software, essential medicines, and the public good.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The other requirements are straight-forward and seemingly<br>
>> attainable.<br>
>> > However the "public good" claim here seems too open-ended. Is<br>
>> this fourth<br>
>> > requirement realistic? Do we wish it to remain an ideal or do we<br>
>> want to<br>
>> > think practically? In what ways can we demand our Universities<br>
>> to openly<br>
>> > license patents that are created through University research?<br>
>> Perhaps only<br>
>> > demanding the release of free software and essential medicines<br>
>> is one end of<br>
>> > the spectrum (a very realistic/practical goal). The other end<br>
>> would then be<br>
>> > the release of all patents (one argument being that publicly<br>
>> funded research<br>
>> > should be open to the public). Where do we want to fall on this<br>
>> spectrum, or<br>
>> > better yet, what is the best position that will be the most fruitful<br>
>> > overall?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I and other Berkeley FCers appreciate any and all thoughts.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > - Matt Senate<br>
>> > University of California at Berkeley<br>
>> > Mathematics / Creative Writing<br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > Discuss mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a>><br>
>> > <a href="http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a>><br>
>> <a href="http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Kevin Donovan<br>
>> Georgetown '11: SFS<br>
>> 630.849.8285<br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@freeculture.org">Discuss@freeculture.org</a><br>
<a href="http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>