We need lots of things, but taxpayer-funding of NGOs (which is what universities are; non-government organizations) typically leads to corruption and poor results, with even less oversight than when government does something itself. Global warming "science" is a good example, as is "vaccine" research, as is . . . (pick your area).
Here's physicist Sabine Hossenfelder on the topic of publicly-funded science:
This is nothing other than the problem of the stupid customer. If the work measured by the annual reports is not up to snuff, then the grants should be curtailed. I've done grant-based research work, and have produced degree theses as documented output. A good part of the research work and funding goes to the support of graduate students as research assistants. If the work is not being evaluated, then the customer is stupidly throwing money out the window with no discernible benefit.
Absolutely! Universities claim patent rights for things invented by student's because "their" (university) equipment helped build the inventions. If the taxpayers are buying the equipment for the universities, then it is only logical that the taxpayers own part of any patents created with our equipment. Good for the goose; good for the gander.
Yes. The USA, and the whole world, would benefit greatly from programs designed to promote and enhance innovation of all sorts. But, the cutthroat corporate establishment that has infested our society stands in the way of innovation- unless they can claim ownership over the intellectual property for themselves.
Breaking the stranglehold that universities hold over the intellectual property rights of their students, and partners is a very welcome step in the right direction.
So how would this play out? As tax revenue? As tax rebates for us? As stimulus checks? I'm not sure I get this. If they're not paying taxes right now, and are in fact getting our tax dollars, this is just a way to claw back some of our tax dollars that we gave them in the first place? If we get rid of income tax, or all taxes, in favor of tariff revenue, would we continue to give universities grants from our tariff revenue and then pass on the government's cut of the patents to us?
Somoene help me get this.
ChatGPT to the rescue:
🔑 How It Would Work in Theory
Howard Lutnick’s idea is essentially to tie taxpayer funding of university research to partial public ownership of resulting patents. Right now:
-Universities get billions in federal grants (NIH, NSF, DoD, etc.).
-When they invent something (a drug, chip design, AI model), the university owns the patent under the Bayh–Dole Act (1980).
-The university can then license that patent to companies and keep the royalties, with only indirect public benefit.
Under Lutnick’s model:
-Government co-ownership: If taxpayers funded the research, the U.S. government would own a portion of the patents.
-Revenue stream: When universities license those patents to private industry, the government would receive a cut of the royalties or licensing fees.
⸻
💵 Where the Money Could Go
If the government collects patent revenue, it could be directed in several ways:
-General Treasury Revenue – most likely scenario. It would offset federal spending, like corporate taxes do now.
-Targeted Programs – e.g. funding more research, reducing deficits, or subsidizing public health.
-Direct Rebates / Stimulus – less likely unless lawmakers deliberately design a “taxpayer dividend” program.
-Tax Reductions – in theory, higher patent revenue could reduce pressure on income or payroll taxes, but only if Congress earmarks it that way.
So unless specifically legislated, this would not show up as a stimulus check or rebate. It would be like any other government revenue stream.
⸻
🏛 If Taxes Were Replaced by Tariffs
You asked: “If we got rid of income tax and funded the government with tariffs, would we still give universities grants, and would the patent revenue pass back to us?”
-Yes, universities could still get federal funding — the funding source doesn’t matter (tariffs vs income tax).
-Patent revenue would still belong to the government. If tariff revenue replaced income taxes, the government might use patent royalties to either:
-Lower tariffs,
-Fund federal programs,
-Or (if designed that way) distribute surplus back to citizens.
But unless a dividend mechanism is written into law (like Alaska’s oil dividend), taxpayers would not automatically get a check.
⸻
⚖️ The Core Idea
It’s not a rebate system for individuals. It’s a claw-back of public investment so the government (and by extension taxpayers) aren’t shut out of profits created with their own money.
Right now, pharma and tech companies make billions commercializing university patents while taxpayers only see indirect benefits. Lutnick’s idea is to let the public share in the upside.
There is another way it could play out also. Ai seems to have missed that option.
Taxpayer funded public entities (like universities) could be forbidden from owning intellectual property rights altogether. You can be a public institution, or private, but not both. Pick one.
I'm sure that option would twist the establishments panties in knot. 😃
In my case, the patent is awarded to the inventor, but is assigned to the employer. It would be part of the employment contract. Unfortunately, the employer can be negligent about exploiting the patent, letting it lapse. And, upon reflection, I don't recall ever being provided a copy of the employment contract. Therefore, when it comes to inventions I have submitted for review, the ones which were rejected I regard as my intellectual property, since I created them off company time.
because they won't own the patents compleatly. a lot of money is made by researchers and corporate sponsors using government money to come up with a patent. stop complete ownership of patent and the private equity that is also being use to fund research will step in to retain control of the patent... when you hear the if the government does not spend the money the research wont be done. that is a lie by corporate entities gaming federal dollars.
If all these universities own patents and generate income from them, along with their multi-billion dollar endowments, then why isn't college education free? Why are they fleecing students?
The Universities will whine. Though you’d think they’d try be grateful they’re even still in business and allowed to operate with all the shit they’ve been causing.
I doubt the Professors will care all that much as long as they still get their funding. As they don’t even own the patents anyway.
Enter Big Pharma! Taxpayers money is used in R&D for new drugs and when a drug is approved by the FDA, the drug company gets the patent and the taxpayers pay enormous price for a drug they funded and the drug company makes the profit so they can kick back to politicians that approve of this process. Needless to say it goes on with other industries also!
Does anyone remember Trumps proposal of free, online education? How was this going to be funded?
ChatGPT: "Trump proposed creating a federally sponsored online university, called the American Academy, which would offer free degrees and be ideologically “apolitical.” It’s intended to compete with traditional colleges and appeal especially to Americans who’ve completed some college coursework but haven’t finished their degrees.
The cornerstone of the funding strategy involves taxing the large endowments of wealthy private universities. Trump claimed this could generate "billions and billions of dollars" to support the new institution—without increasing the federal deficit."
Trump 45~47 should reintroduce this through E/O. Though I retired at 55, I want to earn a college degree since all my children and wife have one. My granddaughter, who would also be interested, is now married and owns her own home. She graduated from our excellent STEM academy. She hated school and said she’s not interested in four more years of college. As an introvert, she dislikes most people. My grandson, who is a mix of introvert and extrovert, has many friends and makes new ones easily. I’m unsure if he would pursue an online degree, but he enjoys school and does very well. He is attending both a STEM Academy and a regular school.
I used to go thru University of Phoenix when I was working. My company would pay for the degree (of course not completely so I have to pay some). You can do it many ways.
If it's a state college, the state should own a piece for sure. Dividends paid to the shareholders aka tax payers. This happens in a few countries like Iceland where the state owns natural gas, etc and they pay profits back to the citizens.
If they take one cent from the United States' hard-working citizens who pay their taxes, yes, the taxpayers should own at least 50% of the patent.
I have never heard of Colleges owning patents and making money off of them. Well, I do now!
not gonna say exactly how i know this, but here's how the process goes: researchers in universities have full-time paid staff to write for govt grants, ongoing "investigations" for whatever they're studying...long ago, those same researchers had their own outside labs, where they would duplicate the results, apply for patents and hold the patents themselves...then the univ's got wind of this, and started co-owning the patents, because the "discoveries" were made on the univ's time/employment, etc...that patent money never filtered back to the govt, and the researchers would be quick to exert pressure on the univ buyers to buy exactly what equipment/brand they specified, because they were the ones who brought in the grant money, they said...many times, the specific equipment was already in use in the lab, before the purchasing process was even completed...anyhow, government grant funds are where the money comes from...
More money to universities with huge endowments already leads to social engineering, social sciences, etc. In other words...liberal communism
More money to government if MAGA in control means paying down debt.
More money to government if Dems in control means slush funds galore.
The only good outcome would be if MAGA were in control. If that's not the case no money should go to endowment rich schools. Put it in Vo-Tech, Community Colleges, Apprenticeship programs.
Either that (partial taxpayer ownership of inventions that are created using taxpayer funds) OR just stop giving tax dollars to the damn universities.
EDIT: I probably don't have to add that Option #2 makes more sense . . .
I like the number one option. We do need progress.
We need lots of things, but taxpayer-funding of NGOs (which is what universities are; non-government organizations) typically leads to corruption and poor results, with even less oversight than when government does something itself. Global warming "science" is a good example, as is "vaccine" research, as is . . . (pick your area).
Here's physicist Sabine Hossenfelder on the topic of publicly-funded science:
https://greatawakening.win/p/19AdlF7SoI/physicist-sabine-hossenfelder-sl/
You are right. Any field or anywhere, you can find corruption.
This is nothing other than the problem of the stupid customer. If the work measured by the annual reports is not up to snuff, then the grants should be curtailed. I've done grant-based research work, and have produced degree theses as documented output. A good part of the research work and funding goes to the support of graduate students as research assistants. If the work is not being evaluated, then the customer is stupidly throwing money out the window with no discernible benefit.
Also, might actually be Constitutional too.
Absolutely! Universities claim patent rights for things invented by student's because "their" (university) equipment helped build the inventions. If the taxpayers are buying the equipment for the universities, then it is only logical that the taxpayers own part of any patents created with our equipment. Good for the goose; good for the gander.
What about incentives for the students? How about an even split between all parties. Wouldn’t that unleash real enthusiasm and encouragement?
Yes. The USA, and the whole world, would benefit greatly from programs designed to promote and enhance innovation of all sorts. But, the cutthroat corporate establishment that has infested our society stands in the way of innovation- unless they can claim ownership over the intellectual property for themselves.
Breaking the stranglehold that universities hold over the intellectual property rights of their students, and partners is a very welcome step in the right direction.
Totally agree.
Amen.
So how would this play out? As tax revenue? As tax rebates for us? As stimulus checks? I'm not sure I get this. If they're not paying taxes right now, and are in fact getting our tax dollars, this is just a way to claw back some of our tax dollars that we gave them in the first place? If we get rid of income tax, or all taxes, in favor of tariff revenue, would we continue to give universities grants from our tariff revenue and then pass on the government's cut of the patents to us?
Somoene help me get this.
ChatGPT to the rescue:
🔑 How It Would Work in Theory
Howard Lutnick’s idea is essentially to tie taxpayer funding of university research to partial public ownership of resulting patents. Right now:
-Universities get billions in federal grants (NIH, NSF, DoD, etc.).
-When they invent something (a drug, chip design, AI model), the university owns the patent under the Bayh–Dole Act (1980).
-The university can then license that patent to companies and keep the royalties, with only indirect public benefit.
Under Lutnick’s model:
-Government co-ownership: If taxpayers funded the research, the U.S. government would own a portion of the patents.
-Revenue stream: When universities license those patents to private industry, the government would receive a cut of the royalties or licensing fees.
⸻
💵 Where the Money Could Go
If the government collects patent revenue, it could be directed in several ways:
-General Treasury Revenue – most likely scenario. It would offset federal spending, like corporate taxes do now.
-Targeted Programs – e.g. funding more research, reducing deficits, or subsidizing public health.
-Direct Rebates / Stimulus – less likely unless lawmakers deliberately design a “taxpayer dividend” program.
-Tax Reductions – in theory, higher patent revenue could reduce pressure on income or payroll taxes, but only if Congress earmarks it that way.
So unless specifically legislated, this would not show up as a stimulus check or rebate. It would be like any other government revenue stream.
⸻
🏛 If Taxes Were Replaced by Tariffs
You asked: “If we got rid of income tax and funded the government with tariffs, would we still give universities grants, and would the patent revenue pass back to us?”
-Yes, universities could still get federal funding — the funding source doesn’t matter (tariffs vs income tax).
-Patent revenue would still belong to the government. If tariff revenue replaced income taxes, the government might use patent royalties to either:
-Lower tariffs,
-Fund federal programs,
-Or (if designed that way) distribute surplus back to citizens.
But unless a dividend mechanism is written into law (like Alaska’s oil dividend), taxpayers would not automatically get a check.
⸻
⚖️ The Core Idea
It’s not a rebate system for individuals. It’s a claw-back of public investment so the government (and by extension taxpayers) aren’t shut out of profits created with their own money.
Right now, pharma and tech companies make billions commercializing university patents while taxpayers only see indirect benefits. Lutnick’s idea is to let the public share in the upside.
There is another way it could play out also. Ai seems to have missed that option.
Taxpayer funded public entities (like universities) could be forbidden from owning intellectual property rights altogether. You can be a public institution, or private, but not both. Pick one.
I'm sure that option would twist the establishments panties in knot. 😃
You. I like you.
Same goes with working for a corporation. You find a new way to do something, it's their patent. Even if you didn't use their equipment.
In my case, the patent is awarded to the inventor, but is assigned to the employer. It would be part of the employment contract. Unfortunately, the employer can be negligent about exploiting the patent, letting it lapse. And, upon reflection, I don't recall ever being provided a copy of the employment contract. Therefore, when it comes to inventions I have submitted for review, the ones which were rejected I regard as my intellectual property, since I created them off company time.
watch how quickly the seeking of government research dollars disappears.
That's fine. But giving them free money and getting jack,is stupid.
If they don't need it, great. It only make sense if you give someone money, you get something back.
Why wouldn't they still ask for research dollars? If the need money for legit research they'll ask.
because they won't own the patents compleatly. a lot of money is made by researchers and corporate sponsors using government money to come up with a patent. stop complete ownership of patent and the private equity that is also being use to fund research will step in to retain control of the patent... when you hear the if the government does not spend the money the research wont be done. that is a lie by corporate entities gaming federal dollars.
If all these universities own patents and generate income from them, along with their multi-billion dollar endowments, then why isn't college education free? Why are they fleecing students?
Shhh, you are making sense!/s Indeed, this is a great question that needs to be studied quickly and fixed.
Ooh, great question.
The Universities will whine. Though you’d think they’d try be grateful they’re even still in business and allowed to operate with all the shit they’ve been causing.
I doubt the Professors will care all that much as long as they still get their funding. As they don’t even own the patents anyway.
Cried babies. Yes, true.
This should dry up the university thirst for taxpayer dollars.
Be great.
Enter Big Pharma! Taxpayers money is used in R&D for new drugs and when a drug is approved by the FDA, the drug company gets the patent and the taxpayers pay enormous price for a drug they funded and the drug company makes the profit so they can kick back to politicians that approve of this process. Needless to say it goes on with other industries also!
That has got to change. How about just don't buy their stuff.
Should also do things like Facebook, which was DARPA before it was facebook. Government developed, paid for with tax dollars.
Yes.
Because when the CCP steals from Universities its a simple matter of theft. When the CCP steals from the USGOV it is espionage. Hold the line!
Just word. It's the same.
Does anyone remember Trumps proposal of free, online education? How was this going to be funded?
ChatGPT: "Trump proposed creating a federally sponsored online university, called the American Academy, which would offer free degrees and be ideologically “apolitical.” It’s intended to compete with traditional colleges and appeal especially to Americans who’ve completed some college coursework but haven’t finished their degrees.
The cornerstone of the funding strategy involves taxing the large endowments of wealthy private universities. Trump claimed this could generate "billions and billions of dollars" to support the new institution—without increasing the federal deficit."
Trump 45~47 should reintroduce this through E/O. Though I retired at 55, I want to earn a college degree since all my children and wife have one. My granddaughter, who would also be interested, is now married and owns her own home. She graduated from our excellent STEM academy. She hated school and said she’s not interested in four more years of college. As an introvert, she dislikes most people. My grandson, who is a mix of introvert and extrovert, has many friends and makes new ones easily. I’m unsure if he would pursue an online degree, but he enjoys school and does very well. He is attending both a STEM Academy and a regular school.
I used to go thru University of Phoenix when I was working. My company would pay for the degree (of course not completely so I have to pay some). You can do it many ways.
Funded by tax dollars? Then tax payers should benefit from them.
How about funded by tariffs? That would be good.
It's a long road of recovery.
Sure hope it's quick.
"Sovereign wealth fund"
It would be good.
If the new invention was funded but the government then we should get a share.
yes. definitely.
If it's a state college, the state should own a piece for sure. Dividends paid to the shareholders aka tax payers. This happens in a few countries like Iceland where the state owns natural gas, etc and they pay profits back to the citizens.
Love the idea.
It's a good idea until all the Chinese students rip off the research.
True. They need to be watch carefully.
IT better be A VERY BIG PORTION!!!.
How about 50%.
ALWAYS start with the highest offer , you are coming in TOO low.
Oh right.
Politicians get back lots of money, always have.
Let them have 8 years and no more. Term limits without revolving doors.
If they take one cent from the United States' hard-working citizens who pay their taxes, yes, the taxpayers should own at least 50% of the patent. I have never heard of Colleges owning patents and making money off of them. Well, I do now!
I advocate for 50%, yes.
not gonna say exactly how i know this, but here's how the process goes: researchers in universities have full-time paid staff to write for govt grants, ongoing "investigations" for whatever they're studying...long ago, those same researchers had their own outside labs, where they would duplicate the results, apply for patents and hold the patents themselves...then the univ's got wind of this, and started co-owning the patents, because the "discoveries" were made on the univ's time/employment, etc...that patent money never filtered back to the govt, and the researchers would be quick to exert pressure on the univ buyers to buy exactly what equipment/brand they specified, because they were the ones who brought in the grant money, they said...many times, the specific equipment was already in use in the lab, before the purchasing process was even completed...anyhow, government grant funds are where the money comes from...
I know the part about the grant writing farmed off to staff. I just did not know about the outside labs..etc. What a mess up world.
Lutnick's energy...gimme some of that...no wait....just keep going...I will absorb from a distance.
Trump team got energy.
How about instead we abolish patents altogether, or make them expire quickly?
I think that's a good way.
More money to universities with huge endowments already leads to social engineering, social sciences, etc. In other words...liberal communism
More money to government if MAGA in control means paying down debt. More money to government if Dems in control means slush funds galore.
The only good outcome would be if MAGA were in control. If that's not the case no money should go to endowment rich schools. Put it in Vo-Tech, Community Colleges, Apprenticeship programs.
I think we will until we get stupid.
Wrong person to ask. I don't know.