Monthly Archives: October 2013

"Effectuating" a change in university policy statements about Bayh-Dole

Here’s a passage from Rutgers’ patent policy: D. Reservation of Rights in Sponsored Research. Ownership of patents arising from work sponsored by Federal agencies shall be subject to the provisions of Public Law 96-517, the Bayh-Dole Act as amended, other … Continue reading

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

Feynman on his patents

Richard Feynman was awarded patents.  Here is a recording of an interview that describes how it all came about.  You can also read about the episode in Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman? Could be academic inventions are a dime a … Continue reading

Posted in Innovation, IP, Policy | Leave a comment

Predators in the Patent System

Stuff is happening in Washington DC, despite the loggerheads on budget and Obamacare. Chris Gallagher sends notice that Sen Hatch has introduced a new bill, SB 1612, “to combat patent trolls” as the press release describes it: WASHINGTON – U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Moose Turd Pie, and No Good

The Economist ran a cover story last week on “how science goes wrong”:   An argument of the piece is that journals like splashy claims but don’t have room for studies that announce validation of prior reports. The article goes … Continue reading

Posted in Bad Science, Freedom, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

Where have you gone, Curt Flood?

It should be clear by now:  universities have no basis to compel assignment of faculty intellectual property.  The basis for faculty assignment of IP is voluntary agreement–either at employment because a faculty member is expressly hired to invent something, or … Continue reading

Posted in Bad Science, History, Policy, Present Assignment | Leave a comment

Forms of ownership failure in compulsory university IP policies

Let’s look at intellectual property ownership in the context of faculty work. For scholarship, we can identify six forms of ownership:  ownership of inventions (patent), original works of authorship (copyright), marks used in commerce (trademark), information (trade secret), tangible stuff … Continue reading

Posted in IP, Policy | Leave a comment

Invention is injury

I have been mulling over “scope of employment” and “course of employment” and “official duties” and related constructions that show up repeatedly in university patent policies. A strange thing about these matters is that there are two very different bodies … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy | Leave a comment

Getting Closer to the Heart

What is the purpose of university intellectual property policy?  This question is not idle.  For decades, Archie Palmer worked to get universities to adopt formal patent and research policies, publishing accounts of various university policy statements, together with commentary on … Continue reading

Posted in Bad Science, Policy | Leave a comment

The loneliness of the tail gunner

A while back I wrote about Vannever Bush’s distinction between institutions based on confidence and ones based on fear and related this distinction to institutional patent policies. In a rather different context, Richard Lindzen of MIT takes up other problems … Continue reading

Posted in Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

University Patent Claim Gridlock

Robert Cook-Deegan drew my attention to an essay by Josh Weitz at The Tree of Life blog.  Weitz discusses his adventures with colliding claims for ownership of future inventions between two universities.  It is well worth the read.  Weitz makes a … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Policy, Present Assignment | Leave a comment