Monthly Archives: January 2011
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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