FASTR is an act proposed to both the Congress and the House suggesting that government agencies spending 100 million or more on "extramural research" to enforce that funded research is available for free to the public within six months of publication. I'm writing a paper in school on this and I can't find any logical opposition. All I did find was publishing agencies vaguely claiming it would hurt business, but I didn't really see how. Could someone explain the downsides of FASTR?
I wonder how many total years of business experience there is in the combine House and Senate. The typical "breakthrough" takes between 5 and 10 years to enter the marketplace, and that development takes money. That cost, per company, isn't significantly lower if 100 companies develop, or if 2 to 3 do. Therefore, the total cost of development goes up with each additional company. Giving away research has unintended consequences. A better approach is to auction off the development rights for 5 to 10 years (depending on the perceived development difficulty) to two or three companies (not one). The money from the auction funds more research. The competition between companies keeps the initial selling price in reason. When the rights expire, other companies have access, and have examples with most of the development already done.
So the net cost of combined development for the idea goes up? How does that affect the company putting the research out? Also, would that not give incentive to develop faster and or better, due to competition, and lead to the finished "product" entering the market sooner, or entering with higher quality?
So, what you're saying is that the combined development cost rises due to this? Why does that affect the company that's putting the research out? And does that not add competition leading to faster development and or higher quality development? Pardon me if I'm a total bafoon, I'm still in highschool and very recently started seriously studying politics.
