All of the copyright advisors to the admin on the TPP are from the industry. ALL of them.

[reACTIONary]

126. We certainly do need solid government funding of research. And I support it. But...

... there is a distinction between fundamental scientific research, that is pure science, and "applied research and development" which tends more towards economic development and applies, rather than originates, much of the research.

Fundamental scientific research, while having very important economic consequences, is not driven by immediate economic concerns, needs or potential. It has never been possible to paten fundamental research, so there has never been a direct economic motivation of that sort to engage in it, either now or in the past. Fundamental research has always been a government supported activity, since the early origins of science (e.g., the Royal Society). The nature of fundamental research makes it unlikely to be funded through market mechanisms and makes it feasible to fund through non-market mechanisms. Since it has great, but non-specific, potential, it makes sense to treat it as a public good and fund it as part of the general welfare.

Applied R&D and engineering, however, is a different game with different motivations. The purpose is to apply scientific research in order to solve more or less immediate economic concerns and to improve the quality of life in the hear-and-now, not in the distant and unforeseeable future. Like any economic activity a large part of the motivation is the profit motive. And this helps to direct and shape R&D towards the actual concerns and problems that people are facing in real life - because addressing those concerns in an effective manner is how you earn a profit. The application of research and economic development have, since the beginning of our country, been motivated and protected by patent law - even in the 50's and 60's.

Especially in the 50's and 60's - take the invention of the transistor, patented in 1948, as an example.

Patents and the profit motive is very important to the activity of translating fundamental scientific research and principles into useful and practical applications that enhance the quality of life. I support both funding of fundamental research as a public good and support for scientists, engineers and inventors through patent protection. I support patent protection because:

* It's simply fair. People who spend time, effort and creative energy finding new ways to improve the quality of life deserve to be rewarded for their accomplishments and giving them a (limited) property right in their creations is an appropriate way to ensure they are.

* As an economic activity, applied research, development and engineering benefits from an economic motive. The profit motive, enhanced by patent protection, helps to direct this activity towards real world problems, solutions and improvements that make a difference in people's lives.

* Patents encourage, in fact require, public disclosure of new and useful inventions and improvement. Without patents the only way to differentially profit by a new discovery is to keep it a secret and prevent others from finding out about it. Patents require public disclosure in exchange for time-limited protection, which quickly and efficiently moves new discoveries and inventions into the public realm. It discourages secrecy and encourages wide-spread adoption through licensing before expiration and makes the discovery public property after expiration.