Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

The monopoly meme, 2

To get at the rhetorical workings of the monopoly meme, we are working our way through Howard Bremer’s testimony before a Senate subcommittee discussing S. 1215, an alternative bill to Bayh-Dole that was being considered after S. 414 had failed … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom, History | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The monopoly meme, 1

There’s a meme that has floated around patent management discussions for decades. It goes something like this: “What is available to all will be used by none.” Here’s an instance from the National Patent Planning Commission report (c. 1945): It … Continue reading

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

Federally supported inventions and public trusts

In 1933, the Supreme Court considered a claim by the United States that two employees of the National Bureau of Standards must give up a patent they had obtained on improvements to radio technology (United States v Dubilier Condenser Corp). … Continue reading

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

Undisclosed subject inventions made in development and commercialization contracts

A note on subject inventions not disclosed under Bayh-Dole–and a place for auditors to romp and play as auditors are wont to do, if auditors were ever to romp and play with regard to anything consequential in Bayh-Dole. What follows … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole’s Ruby Slippers

This is a story about 35 USC 201(b), 35 USC 202(a), 37 CFR 401.9, and 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) and (g)(1). These provisions of Bayh-Dole, implementing regulations, and standard patent rights clause, when read together, create ruby slippers. The story requires … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations

NIST–can’t live with them, but law firms sure can. Here’s another law firm popping off about NIST’s recent revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations and standard patent rights clause. Keep in mind that NIST’s chief counsel is already on record not … Continue reading

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

Illusions of Bayh-Dole: “manufactured substantially” 4

Previous articles in the series are here, here, and here. There’s a simple point to make about Bayh-Dole’s section 204 requirement that exclusive licenses to use or sell products based on a subject invention in the United States include an … Continue reading

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

Ten Year Note

Ten years ago, on September 4, 2008, I started the Research Enterprise blog. My idea was to use the blog to document what I had learned about university-based technology transfer over 15 years of licensing practice, and to describe ways … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 10

We have been circling around the central problem of “exceptional circumstances” in Bayh-Dole. The law works to allow organizations to make decisions about patent monopolies that preempt other statutes–ones that “require a disposition of rights inconsistent” with Bayh-Dole’s arbitrary preemption … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Owns Digital Learning Resources?–6

Let’s come back around to Hal Plotkin’s question–who owns digital learning resources? Plotkin wants the answer to be: certainly not the university bureaucrats aiming to “commercialize” everything and therefore putting everything behind a paywall. That makes sense. Bureaucrats don’t have … Continue reading

Posted in Commons, Freedom, Open Source, Policy | Tagged , | Leave a comment