Monthly Archives: October 2017

“Compliance with Bayh-Dole”

There are folks out there making money by offering compliance services for Bayh-Dole. At one level, it’s understandable. University administrators make a big deal about compliance. They see a complicated world. Many administrators aren’t prepared to read regulations carefully and … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

There Is No Bayh-Dole Compliance for Universities

There is no Bayh-Dole compliance for universities. I know. This goes against everything you’ve heard. But really, let’s get real. Five points. Bayh-Dole doesn’t apply to universities. It applies to federal agencies and changes property rights in patents on inventions … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 17

We are pretty much through with the University of Missouri’s policy scam. Let’s clean up a few last gobbets of policy ugliness. To review. The University of Missouri’s patent policy provides only two conditions under which the university may claim … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 16

University administrators insist that they, unlike their corporate counterparts, can expand their institutional claim on inventions to be anything that’s invented, and faculty must agree to this claim as a condition of employment. That is, administrators claim the right to … Continue reading

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

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 15

In Bayh-Dole, the definition of “subject invention” is not a matter of defining a term in a federal contract. Bayh-Dole is part of federal patent law, so “subject invention” is a definition of patent law. A subject invention is a … Continue reading

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

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 14

The use of “subject invention” in federal contracting goes back to at least as early as 1947, when the military used “subject invention” in research contracts. Here’s an instance from a Navy contract (quoted in Mine Safety Appliances Company v. … Continue reading

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

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 13

In the Institutional Patent Agreement program operated by the NIH, the “conception or first actual reduction to practice” scope gets changed from being only about the scope of what the government does not have to compensate a patent owner for … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 12

Hah–thought I was out of Misery articles? No, not at all. We have a few more! The distinction between conception and reduction to practice becomes important in university patent policies such as the University of Missouri’s because university administrators attempt … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

At least repeal Bayh-Dole for everything other than pharmaceuticals

No other industry writes fakographics about the glories of Bayh-Dole. Only pharma. No-one in university research writes fakographics about the glories of Bayh-Dole. Only patent bureaucrats and their stooges in front organizations like AUTM, COGR, AAU, and APLU. Oh, maybe … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole, the rotten law for rotten bureaucrats

You know something has to be rotten with Bayh-Dole when: university administrators never cite the law even close to correctly the statistics used to champion the law are fake and deceptive all reports of invention utilization are government secrets university … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment