"Gary Heston" <gheston@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:vntn3ds43a82a6@corp.supernews.com...

You do realize that United Devices is a for-profit company, who will
sell the products of the work you're doing and pocket the money, and

That's not quite accurate.  UD is in fact a for-profit company but the
smallpox and cancer programs are being run as sponsored philanthropic
projects -- UD isn't making any money on either of them.  The cancer project
actually "belongs" to Oxford University and the smallpox project "belongs"
to the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
(USAMRIID).  Statements of intellectual property rights of any research
results are plainly made at UD's website.

UD's commercial ventures focus primarily on selling their distributed
processing software to companies for internal use -- not their public
projects.   Participation in any particular public project is voluntary.
(To date, only a couple of commercially oriented projects have been run on
the public system; most have been sponsored "public good" projects.)

is also who sued Berkely over the BOINC code, delaying that activity?

They didn't so much sue Berkely as they did Dr. Anderson (creator of
SETI@home and UD's DC engine).  Apparently there were intellectual property
and/or contractual non-compete issues involved when Dr. Anderson left UD and
started work on BOINC.  Annoying but understandable -- UD has to look out
for its interests just like Berkeley does.

They want my CPU cycles, they can pay for them.

You could say the same for SETI@home.  All three projects, S@h, UD-Cancer, &
UD-Smallpox are non-profit "public good" endeavors.

 7837WU & crunching...