Monthly Archives: January 2011

How the Grudging Farmer Really Feels About the Hens

Here is an entirely typical start to a university IP policy.  I have picked it almost at random.  I don’t have any particular agenda with the school involved.  This sort of reading can be done with most any university’s IP … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy, Social Science, Technology Transfer | 2 Comments

All for Outcomes, and Outcomes for All

In Stanford v. Roche, the discussion for folks on the sidelines is *not* who “wins” but rather the consequences of the arguments used to “win”.  If the interpretation of certain university-controlled organizations win, then the outcomes will affect *everyone*, regardless of … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

Which side of the door?

Why do universities claim faculty inventions rather than offer to accept them? To put an edge on it, the difference between a workplace and a prison is which side of the door the lock is on. 

Posted in IP, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Modern Zombie Narratives

I have been thinking more about innovation as I’ve written the two essays on the history of warfarin.  In those essays, I consider the nature of the narratives that report, or carry, the history of warfarin.   As I work on … Continue reading

Posted in Social Science | Leave a comment

The Policy and the Damage Done

Here is a state law pertaining to employer claims to employee inventions: Sec. 2. Employee rights to inventions ‑ conditions). (1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

On the warfarin path, part 2

The first essay in this series is here.  Let’s turn now in our warfarin narratives to a few more developed accounts, including Karl Paul Link’s own published account.  [I have corrected a biographical error–Prof. Link’s Ph.D. was from Wisconsin, not … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

Creepiness is next to greediness

It is true that some criticisms of university technology transfer offices are misdirected.  Criticism, however, is not merely a sign of ill will or ignorance or organized special interest lulz of everything good.  Criticism also serves the role of debate … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Opening up subject invention reporting

In the last post, I suggested a new reporting for subject inventions.  Nothing like this presently exists.  The ubiquitous university licensing survey aggregates information and therefore becomes useless for tracking subject inventions.  And misleading. 

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Metrics, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Improving periodic reporting

Bayh-Dole is not a perfect law by any means.  But what are the weak points?  Where can things be improved?  Here is one suggestion.  In 35 USC 202(c)(5) funding agreements are required to have language to permit agencies to request … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Metrics | Leave a comment

What No Law Can Do

I’ve worked through a lot of things about Bayh-Dole recently, including looking at the various claims coming forward about how Bayh-Dole works in the context of the Stanford v. Roche case.    In particular I am interested in the amicus briefs … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment