Harvard tell Trump to pound sand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Yep. Federal government will have to pay for it now.

Exactly. Some of the best research that leads to unexpected benefits for all of society come through this type of research. Pharmaceutical companies only want high dollar drugs with with quick payouts. We will all suffer if there isn’t the type of research that our government funds (and that the private sector doesn’t have the patience for).

[Anonymous]

This is "Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face" 101. And MAGA and the right wingers here are so short-sighted they can't even see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

It won’t save you anything, money will directed to something else, probably billionaires pocket it thats makes you feel better.

[Anonymous]

About 70% of the funds related to Harvard were associated with med school / hospitals like Mass General , Dana Farber etc, so research for cancer , diabetes , etc…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About 70% of the funds related to Harvard were associated with med school / hospitals like Mass General , Dana Farber etc, so research for cancer , diabetes , etc…

Don't worry, RFK Jr is solving those and Trump's EPA is going to protect us from environmental carcinogens....

... Takes a big gulp of my PFA laden public drinking water.

[Anonymous]

Whoever said Princeton is leading the way is 100% correct. Well, somebody had to show how to do it.

[Anonymous]

Where will the ex-Biden admin officials get their sinecures now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

Harvard, was involved with the discovery of insulin medication, first kidney transplant, gene therapies, etc.

[Anonymous]

When Trump's government starts paying 3 or 4 times more to Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, CalTech, etc. for the previously royalty free IP . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. It will save us tax dollars.

Probably not. The US government will no longer get royalty free IP from the research they funded. Now they will have to license it on commercial terms.

Does Harvard even have an IP portfolio? They probably do mostly policy research.

7722 patents across all sorts of stuff.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/school/Harvard-University/portfolio-p4.html

That is a fraction of an ordinary public university: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?sort=relevance&srch=top&query_txt=University+of+Missouri&submit=&patents_us=on

People don't realize Harvard is about business, law, oh yeah maybe medicine, but not much in medicine.

True. But as this sniping goes on whose side do you think MIT will join? They get 1.6 billion . . . and have a few more patents than Univ. of Missouri (is that you Josh?)

Yes, but MIT makes things that are useful, Harvard only does policy research. If Harvard isn't going to produce any research that is usefult to this administration, why should we fund it?

LOL at the ignorant folks who think Harvard doesn’t do science.