"Promoting intellectual discovery"
The March 6, 2009 issue of Science has an article titled--> "Promoting Intellectual Discovery: Patents Versus Markets", written by Debrah Meloso, Jerney Copic, and Peter Bossaerts. Meloso is affiliated with Bocconi University in Milan (debrah.meloso at
unibocconi.it). [323 Science 1335]
Within the article is discussion of the knapsack problem (KP). There was a comparison of the "prize system" to the "market system." One conclusion: "significantly more participants reported the correct solution [in the market system] than under the prize system.
The conclusion: "our experimental findings suggest the patent system is not a universally superior way to incentivize intellectual discovery." In their model of "markets-based system", compensation for inventions is shared.
IPBiz note: Meloso et al. might contemplate the "compensation shared" angle with history, as in Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and various empire-builders. "Take it and make it your own" is not about patents/prizes but it is not about sharing, either. The Venetians knew what they were doing; does Meloso?
The March 6 issue also contains the article "Responding to Possible Plagiarism," by Tara C. Long, Mounir Errami, Angela C. George, Zhaohui Sun, and Harold R. Garner." See 323 Science 1293. It includes the line: "Authors must all commit to both the novelty and accuracy of the work they report." Relevant to peer review: "Volunteers who agree to provide peer review must accept the responsibility of an informed, thorough, and conscientious review." As to editors, the article states they must also "verify the originality of the manuscripts they publish."
***Also, on intellectual discovery-->
8 Brilliant Scientific Screw-ups
unibocconi.it). [323 Science 1335]
Within the article is discussion of the knapsack problem (KP). There was a comparison of the "prize system" to the "market system." One conclusion: "significantly more participants reported the correct solution [in the market system] than under the prize system.
The conclusion: "our experimental findings suggest the patent system is not a universally superior way to incentivize intellectual discovery." In their model of "markets-based system", compensation for inventions is shared.
IPBiz note: Meloso et al. might contemplate the "compensation shared" angle with history, as in Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and various empire-builders. "Take it and make it your own" is not about patents/prizes but it is not about sharing, either. The Venetians knew what they were doing; does Meloso?
The March 6 issue also contains the article "Responding to Possible Plagiarism," by Tara C. Long, Mounir Errami, Angela C. George, Zhaohui Sun, and Harold R. Garner." See 323 Science 1293. It includes the line: "Authors must all commit to both the novelty and accuracy of the work they report." Relevant to peer review: "Volunteers who agree to provide peer review must accept the responsibility of an informed, thorough, and conscientious review." As to editors, the article states they must also "verify the originality of the manuscripts they publish."
***Also, on intellectual discovery-->
8 Brilliant Scientific Screw-ups
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 1:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home