Monthly Archives: January 2018

Illusions of Bayh-Dole: “manufactured substantially” 2

The start of this article is here. We are taking apart section 204 of the Bayh-Dole Act, the “Preference for United States manufacturing” that ends up being almost useless for its purpose. But to get there, we have to go … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

Illusions of Bayh-Dole: “manufactured substantially” 1

Let me show you how empty the Bayh-Dole provision on “Preference for United States Industry” (35 USC 204) is. According to its terms, this provision is the single most important piece of federal patent policy. For convenience, here’s the provision: … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | 1 Comment

Illusions of Bayh-Dole: Bayh and Dole argue for unreasonable drug pricing

Here’s an article by Birch Bayh and Bob Dole published in the Topeka Capital-Journal in 2002 with the headline “Bayh, Dole: Drug price controls hurt, and weren’t intended.” In the article, the co-sponsors of Bayh-Dole aim to rebut Peter Arno … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

Illusions of Bayh-Dole: patent blockages and incentives

In 1979, when S. 414 was introduced by Senators Bayh and Dole–later much of the language of S. 414 would form the core of the Bayh-Dole Act–Senator Bayh made the following claim: Some 30,000 government-owned patents are piled up awaiting … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole–six parts real, one part faux

Bayh-Dole is a law in six real parts and one faux part. There’s a policy part (35 USC 200, 201, 206, 210-212); requirements for contractor owned inventions (35 USC 202(a, b), 203, 204, 205); requirements for federally owned inventions (35 … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole’s only purpose is to exploit public suffering for profit

The Bayh-Dole Act was created to permit the pharmaceutical industry to gain patent monopolies over inventions in medicinal chemistry made with federal government support. I have been through the history. I have worked through law for a decade. I practiced … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

On Not Crossing Donner Pass

Turn anywhere in university technology transfer and you will find the “Valley of Death.” This Valley of Death, goes the argument, is the reason why it is so difficult to license patents to industry to create commercial products. There’s just … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Social Science | Leave a comment

Helge Holst’s 1963 Argument for Institutional Control of Government Inventions

In 1963, Helge Holst, an attorney for Arthur D. Little and member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s National Defense Committee published a report titled “Government Patent Policy: Its Impact on Contractor Cooperation with the Government and Widespread Use of … Continue reading

Posted in History | Leave a comment

The Biddle Report’s Perfectly Fine Assumptions

From time to time, I revisit territory. I wrote about this issue almost two years ago, now. I provide here a different angle that gets at the same point. Here’s Sean O’Connor proposing that a flawed assumption in the U.S. … Continue reading

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

The National Patent Planning Commission argument for government-created private patent monopolies, 3

The National Patent Planning Commission quotes administration officials repeating this same argument. Here’s the Under Secretary of Agriculture (1941): The commercial exploitation of new inventions requires, in many cases, the expenditure of large sums of money. In such a case, … Continue reading

Posted in History, Innovation, Policy | Leave a comment