The tick bites deeper into the neck

I know, most of you don’t have time to work through 50 pages of close reading of a university patent policy, with all its levels and inconsistencies and misrepresentations and foolishnesses. Here’s a summary:

FSU’s patent policy violates Florida state law

  • expands grossly what it can claim beyond securing patents on work product
  • ignores the requirement to review and agree before claiming ownership
  • treats royalty sharing as a generous perk rather than consideration for assignment
  • requires inventors to concur in the university’s non-compliance
  • does not provide for reporting all assignments and agreements to the state

FSU’s patent policy guidance misrepresents and misapplies state and federal law

  • Florida Statue 1004.23
  • Bayh-Dole Act 35 USC 200-212
  • Federal patent law and copyright law

FSU’s patent policy and guidance is ambiguous, inconsistent, overreaching, and deceptive

  • ownership claims are overbroad and random
  • guidance varies from policy
  • policy is inconsistent internally and with other policies, such as academic freedom

FSU administrators seem to believe that

  • administrative self-interest matters more than consideration of inventor contribution
  • policy binds inventors, not administrators
  • university legal counsel is reserved for administrative use against inventors

There you have it. In simple terms, a garbled mess. In slightly less simple terms, a nasty, clever, non-compliant policy that is both incompetent and deceptive, while appearing to be legal and proper. The tick of bureaucracy bites deeper into the neck of research enterprise.



This entry was posted in Bozonet, Policy. Bookmark the permalink.