[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: commercial crimes -- & NIH?
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: FW: commercial crimes -- & NIH?
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:01:12 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Dear Bonnie, I am glad to hear your interpretation that " NIH is exercising its right through the government's license to make both works done under contract and grant publicly available." Whether the way in which this is being done is appropriate, rather than excessive or inadequate, is not yet known. This has not stopped many (including myself) from discussing the question repeatedly-- but I think all would be agreed that at least the principle of public access has been established. We also agree, as a historical fact, that the current rule is the outcome of "a compromise was forged in which the contractor or grantee retains title to the IP, but the government gets a license. " I think it time to alter the terms, which as you point out, are matters set only by regulation. (The formal statements may differ, the practical effect for our present purposes is the same for work done under contract or under a grant. I've worked under both-- the paperwork and application process is not identical, but the effect of the individual is. ) (I note that the contractor or grantee is rarely an individual, but instead an organization of some sort although in general discussion, "grantee" is often used as a synonym for the Principal Investigator. ( P.I.) For copyright at least, the regulations are no longer appropriate to the actual conditions of science publishing. It is not the contractor or grantee nor the P.I. who actually retains the copyright, but in the practical world, all must give the rights to a publisher in exchange for publication. I've read the regulations, too, and I have for long thought that a very simple change in them would force a solution to the whole problem. The copyright need only reside inalienably with the contractor/grantee/P.I./authors, who would be only authorized to give another organization no more than an non-exclusive lichens, in addition to the required government use license. I'm not sure just how the publishing system would adapt, but it would. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University firstname.lastname@example.org -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com on behalf of Klein, Bonnie Sent: Sun 11/27/2005 4:34 PM To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' Subject: RE: FW: commercial crimes -- & NIH? David, You've misinterpreted my posting. NIH or any other federal agency "engaging in R&D primarily for agency needs" funds this work under CONTRACT. Check FedBizOps and you will see a variety of agency Requests for Proposals (RFP) for basic and applied research. The Public may or may not receive a direct and immediate benefit. In this respect, research done under federal contract parallels the commercial sector. Generally, under FAR/DFARS rules and terms, the agency has a government purpose license to work produced by the contractor in performance of the contract. Federal grants are different than contracts in that their stated purpose is to stimulate a public good. Under OMB regulations, the government also has a non-exclusive federal purpose license to work done under grant. Whether or not government-funded contract and grant works should be in the public domain; i.e., free of intellectual property restrictions, has been debated by Congress before and argued in court. It appears to me that a compromise was forged in which the contractor or grantee retains title to the IP, but the government gets a license. NIH is exercising its right through the government's license to make both works done under contract and grant publicly available. Bonnie Klein