

LED Inventor and Employer Settle for $8.1M (2005) - jlaurito
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/business/worldbusiness/12light.html?_r=1&

======
bzang
He did also just pick up a Nobel prize today, so that ain't half bad...

~~~
jonah
And the Millennium Technology Prize in 2006. Its award is 1 million euros.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Technology_Prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Technology_Prize)

------
jacquesm
That was peanut money compared to the value of the invention.

~~~
jjoonathan
The Lipitor guy ($135b in sales) didn't get a cent on top of his salary (which
many here would scoff at were it offered to them) -- and he has been laid off
twice since then. In the sciences this kind of thing is the rule, not the
exception.

And before HN starts with the "He deserves exactly what he got because he
didn't negotiate for equity," I would like to point out that looking for a job
in research science is nothing like looking for a job in software engineering.
Scientists are seldom in a position to make demands. The market simply does
not value science. It places plenty of value on the products which science is
the rate-limiting step in creating, but because basic science is effectively a
non-excludable good it seldom gets to capture any appreciable fraction of the
value it creates. The patent system was a valiant attempt to fix this, but it
hasn't lived up to anybody's hopes.

> "That sucks. I'm glad I'm not a scientist!"

Just hope that in 30 years when you get diagnosed with cancer your cure won't
be in the set {things that would have been discovered if medical research had
gotten >2% of health care expenditures} \ {things that were discovered
anyway}. This is a problem that affects us all.

~~~
maratd
> The market simply does not value science.

Not true. It values science.

It just doesn't value most scientists. If you produce high quality science on
a consistent, constant basis ... trust me, you'll get the big $$$.

But if you get lucky because you stumbled on something great, that's not
science. That's winning the lottery. And you didn't win the lottery, your
employer did. Your employer knows it had nothing to do with you and had
everything to do with luck.

If Lipitor guy had a convincing argument that he could have another $135b
breakthrough, that he could be consistent, do you really think everybody would
tell him to screw off? I bet they would easily lay half that amount at his
feet.

~~~
jjoonathan
> But if you get lucky because you stumbled on something great, that's not
> science.

No, that's exactly how science works. The consistent delivery of predictable
desired results is called engineering, not science.

The rest of your post revolves around this misunderstanding, so I won't insult
you by repeating myself.

~~~
maratd
> No, that's exactly how science works.

No, it doesn't. There have been an ample number of scientists that have
produced spectacular work on a consistent basis. No luck involved. And they
have been highly valued.

What you don't want to admit is that scientists are like basketball players
when it comes to how they're valued. You're either a superstar or you're
worthless ... and being really good is equivalent to being worthless. You need
to be spectacular.

I'm not trying to offend, that's just how the market works. I don't see
anybody complaining about the market dynamics of athletes.

~~~
jjoonathan
First of all, these are two distinct claims:

1\. The market undervalues science and scientists

2\. Science is sub-optimally close to the "extremistan" end of the
"extremistan-mediocristan" spectrum

I believe both (why do you think I would "not want to admit" #2?), but the
claim I have been making is #1. The existence of well-compensated scientists
is not evidence against #1 because #1 is an aggregate statement and #2 should
guarantee the existence of well-compensated scientists regardless of #1.

Now let's talk about #2.

> There have been an ample number of scientists that have produced spectacular
> work on a consistent basis. No luck involved.

Examples?

Before you try to p-hack this one, let me specify the null model: scientist as
prospector. Like gold in the ground, ideas cluster. Skill and resources
determine your rate of sifting through earth, but at the end of the day
initial positioning matters a hell of a lot. The founders of a new field are
all but guaranteed decades of consistent productivity, but in order to
maximize the amount of gold dug out of the ground it still makes sense to
devote considerable resources to surveyors who haven't yet hit paydirt.

What would I see as evidence of the "skill" view? Einstein before 1906. People
who are able to consistently make breakthroughs.

What do I see as counterevidence? Einstein after 1906. An overabundance of
one-hit-wonders. Hundreds of theoretical papers in the arXiv that make the
construction of GR look like a rite of passage rather than a singular
achievement -- with the exception that Einstein happened to be right where
they happened to be wrong or useless (it's not like either could tell ahead of
time how things would turn out). Epistemology: correct useful ideas are very,
very sparse in the set of plausible ideas.

> I don't see anybody complaining about the market dynamics of athletes.

Doubling the number of competent-but-not-superstar basketball players would
add little marginal value (more games, maybe).

Doubling the number of competent-but-not-superstar scientists would about
double the marginal discovery rate of science, assuming the scientist-as-
prospector model.

~~~
maratd
> Doubling the number of competent-but-not-superstar scientists would about
> double the marginal discovery rate of science, assuming the scientist-as-
> prospector model.

Right. I reject that assumption. Because science has nothing to do with luck.
You provided zero evidence to suggest that it does.

I would posit that there is substantial skill and talent involved in properly
positioning yourself to be one of the "founders of a new field". It has
nothing to do with luck.

Since it has nothing to do with luck, doubling or tripling the number of
individuals who don't have the capacity to properly position themselves
changes nothing. It just wastes resources on useless fields that produce
nothing valuable.

------
Hytosys
$8.1M will buy you everything you need for the rest of your life. I'm glad
that this was the outcome, and I hope that he's now leading a happy life!

~~~
jonah
He seems to be doing quite well.

[http://ssleec.ucsb.edu/nakamura](http://ssleec.ucsb.edu/nakamura)

------
sosuke
It may seem small, but for some reason it feels like a big win.

