Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
No GOP-speak here, I think the model for the natural/chemical/biological (IE non-social) sciences makes sense. As you say, incremental discoveries can add-up to something important. And if our governments are funding this basic research, the results should be public. Though there remains a question of patenting something. Arguably, if you discover it (even while on the dole), it makes sense to have an incentive-system built-in with patents.

It's in the social sciences that things get fuzzy.
Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but with panting, isn't the idea to simultaneously protect the inventor, and to spread the information so that others can improve on it (while paying for a license)? Which is why patents are public, so trade secrets aren't patented because they'd be open for anyone to see. So patenting does not go against making the results public, at all.