Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dogdeacon, post: 3929061, member: 1026"] [SIZE=3]Bendm devil's advocate- how does this compare/contrast to undergraduate students working in university STEM programs that assist with research leading to the development of patents? the patent is filed and owned by the school, which can get millions from it, while the undergrads that worked on its development get what? course credit? they certainly don't get a share of the profits....[/SIZE] ONIONS! Right, the fake amateurism creates a side-cart of restrictions that hinder development, monopolize the individuals' skills purely for Univ benefit and make ANY kind of money earning pursuit impossible. Regular students or grad students have no such restrictions. bendm: Two things: 1. Working on developing a product that may or may not have a future value or benefit stream is A LOT different than actually being the product that has a known value and extremely large CURRENT benefit stream that produces revenue for others (the very revenue that funds the infrastructure). For this analogy to work the grad students would physically be or serve as a part of the patents or products they create. 2. Plus in the business world of patents, the company that owns/funds or an individual leader ultimately reaps the vast majority of value. In the world of sports that are not systemically amateur, athletes receive at least half (NBA 51% I believe) of the benefits. In the business analogy saying grad students should get a share of the profits is akin to saying every worker in every job should be made a part owner? No, everyone simply deserves a fair wage for the work they do and value they create. Patents of course involve research, a ton of money, and a ton of risk - yes employees get some reward for their labors, but the equity source takes the most risk, provides funding for the materials needed, pays wages with no certainty of future income and therefore reaps the $ benefit. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach