Monthly Archives: December 2016

Bayh-Dole all but mandates Government practice of subject inventions

The Bayh-Dole Act requires contractors retaining ownership of subject inventions to grant a non-exclusive license to the government. Commonly, this license is depicted as a requirement that commercial vendors sell product based on subject inventions to the government “royalty-free”–meaning that … Continue reading

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

Federal patent policy for the 21st Century, Part 3

What’s funny (funny “strange” not funny “funny”) is that universities could implement the core of this version of the law themselves, right now, no politics necessary. Yes, there is still all the wasted paperwork to throw around under the current … Continue reading

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

Federal patent policy for the 21st Century, Part 2

In Part 1, I proposed a new law governing federal patent policy for public interest research conducted at universities–research to advance science and technology, or to address matters of public welfare. That new law carried with it public covenants that … Continue reading

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

Federal patent policy for the 21st Century, Part 1

How about a new Dole/Bayh Act? Of course, it will have different names attached to it. How about a law that tracks what Vannevar Bush recommended for scientific frontiers, nearly 75 years ago, in Science the Endless Frontier? One that puts inventors first. … Continue reading

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

Exclusive licensing in Bayh-Dole, Part 2: The Lost Requirements

When Bayh-Dole was first passed, the statement of policy and objective had the following: It is the policy and objective of the Congress . . . to ensure that inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms are used … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

Evidence-based federal research patent policy

The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking is holding a public hearing in Chicago in January for “any interested stakeholders” to provide input. Given that the commission’s statutory mandate is more toward database access and security, I’m not sure that the lack … Continue reading

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

Exclusive licensing in Bayh-Dole, Part 1: Licenses and Assignments

Here is what Bayh-Dole says about exclusive licenses: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no small business firm or nonprofit organization which receives title to any subject invention and no assignee of any such small business firm or nonprofit … Continue reading

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

Turning (f)(2) into an assignment clause violates Bayh-Dole

When I first looked through the proposed revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations, it appeared that they applied to inventions made by federal employees and extended implementing regulations to include large businesses, consistent with a presidential executive order that does the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Leave a comment

Boiling away “Why Bayh-Dole”

The basis of the patent system is individual inventor rights. Bayh-Dole strips these in favor of institutional exploitation. Bayh-Dole is inventor loathing. The results are terrible. Commercialization rates are 1/1oth what they were before Bayh-Dole. Bayh-Dole has created tens of … Continue reading

Posted in Bad Science | Leave a comment

Why Bayh-Dole . . . should go down

Here’s an even shorter response to Brian O’Shaughnessy’s inventor-loathing, Bayh-Dole-misrepresenting puff piece, “Why Bayh-Dole?” If individual rights are so important, then why do universities take institutional control of inventions? Locke and Madison argue for individual ownership. Universities use Bayh-Dole to strip … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment