Monthly Archives: February 2012

The University D-Economy, Fitt 5

I have been looking at various statements regarding the “D-economy”.  It goes by various names–Shanzhai rules, débrouillards, System-D.  The Wired write up was interesting.   Here is another, from Coley Hudgins at Resilient Family.  Here’s another by Robert Neuwirth (who … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, History, Innovation, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Patent battles and research fragmentation

John Dvorak over at PC Magazine has an interesting comment on the patent battles shaping up in mobile.  His more general observation, however, is what  caught my eye: This whole idea of actual inventions and the monopoly is over. Around … Continue reading

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

Projects, the Treatment for Fool's Dream Virus

The gulf between the Supreme Court decision in Stanford v Roche and the push in universities for present assignments is huge.   The Court decided the question whether Bayh-Dole was a vesting statute.  It said no. Wasn’t.  By doing that, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Projects, Sponsored Research, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Please Leave the Den Now

Attorneys analyzing Stanford v Roche and the Bayh-Dole Act from a distance need to understand: Bayh-Dole is directed at federal agencies.  It requires agencies to use a standard patent rights clause in their funding agreements.  The patent rights clause is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Leave a comment

Recycling Losing Arguments as Policy Intent

In a recent essay on the Stanford v Roche decision, Sean O’Connor gives a fascinating perspective on the push by the University of California to impose a present assignment obligation on faculty.  I could not figure how they could rationalize … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Present Assignment, Stanford v Roche | Leave a comment

Present Assignment Agreements, the Coming Nightmare for University IP Practice

This turned out to be a longish essay for a blog environment. It’s not for everyone. It puts together arguments against the idea that present assignments somehow address the Stanford v Roche situation, or situations like it, or are otherwise … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy, Present Assignment, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Transfer Reporting

I have written before about technology transfer standards (here and here, for instance), and how the AUTM licensing survey in particular fails to provide useful management information, and in some ways is quite misleading with regard to what is going … Continue reading

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

Why an Innovation Bill of Rights, and not Better Bureaukleptic University Policy?

I’m looking at a new article on Stanford v Roche that ends with the assurance that universities can use present assignments and doing so will “fix” their ownership problem.  Before getting into the article, I want to emphasize that this … Continue reading

Posted in Innovation, IP, Policy, Present Assignment, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Texas wants you anyway

The University of Texas has a fine statement of ownership in its policy (Rule 90101, Section 2). The Board of Regents automatically owns the intellectual property created by individuals subject to this Rule that is described in Sections 3, 5, … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Present Assignment | 1 Comment

Stevenson-Wydler and Public Domain

In working through the agent model anticipated by Bayh-Dole, I was chasing down the citations for each of the possible outcomes.  The one that caught me up, however, was how a subject invention gets to the public domain.  I thought … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy | Leave a comment