one of the main driving forces of the open access movement is the idea that if the public has already paid for the research through taxation or philanthropy, it is not reasonable ask people to pay again to read the documents that are issued as a result. The strength of this argument is probably due, in part, free access to the world gaining greater acceptance.

But the same logic could be applied to the commercialization of public research. Why should people have to pay market prices often requested by companies in these products - which, of course, try to maximize profitability - when the public who funded the initial work that has made these products in the first place?

As for open access, the challenge is to achieve an alternative approach that allows new medical treatments should be made available as widely as possible. A recent article in Nature Biotechnology John Frangioni, reported by @ MaliciaRogue offers a new solution based on open source development run by a nonprofit foundation

This open source model, sublicense for-profit entities are recommended but not exclusively. Profit companies licensing technology are encouraged to innovate on the platform, which will provide IP protection, help reduce barriers to entry and provide patients with more versions of the technology. Open exchange of information source and the evolution of technology is encouraged rather than discouraged with the idea that knowledge to enrich the profit they want to carve niche IP-protected while enhancing academic scientists with solid understanding of the state of the art.

is a fascinating and detailed article that explores current issues of marketing research, including the following considerations on which the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 has failed to promote technology transfer from universities to industry as expected:

result of the Bayh-Dole Act, the policy of technology transfer CMA many [academic medical centers] was to defend the rights of general patents for inventions possible (all cost high), sometimes without sufficient consideration if sufficient validation of an inventory of assets to obtain a permit and / or marketed, and, too often, startups AMC was outside without due diligence, resulting in many companies not sustainable financing of the investment community.


Frangioni
approach is very different. Since the non-profit foundation funded by the public, the emphasis is on maximizing the benefit to the patient rather than financial returns. In a new way the need for reciprocity using the knowledge of the foundation: