>> In article <CMM.0.90.2.710263441.kristoff at genbank.bio.net> kristoff at GENBANK.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) writes:
>> Given the resources that NCBI has for research, it would also be
> unlikely that the small commercial concerns would be able to compete
> on the basis of new algorithm development. A possible compromise, in
> my opinion, would be for NCBI to continue its database production and
> algorithm research roles, but to stay out of the user interface
> business. They might, of course, outline standards for database
> access interfaces, but general toolkit development seems to me, at
> least, to be overreaching their mandate.
> this is Goofy.
Hi!!!!
> you should be in just as good a position as all the other companies
> that sell government funded software.
I didn't realize that we were so fortunate!!
> in particular, take a look at berkeley unix (the original basis of sun
> microsystems), tcp/ip (the basis of the internet), or mach (what osf
> will be distributing) or any of the circuit simulation packages based
> on spice (legion) or cmu common lisp (currently one of the best common
> lisps available on the sun). all of these either have been or could
> now be sold by private companies. just because the original
> development was done with government money does not mean that it will
> negatively impact a private companies bottom line. in fact, if the
> work is well done and sets a new standard, the effect is generally the
> opposite because of market priming.
>> letting ncbi develop software of any sort will just _help_
> intelligenetics business.
I'm in a jovial mood this evening 8-). I'll pass your message along
to the CEO's of all of the software companies involved in the
Biotechnology Association. They, too, despite having closely
monitored this situation for some time, were not aware of their good
fortune, so I am sure that this will make their day.
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
GenBank Manager
kristoff at genbank.bio.net
