Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1

Bayh-Dole, part of federal patent law, starts with a statement of “Policy and Objective” at 35 USC 200. Usually, commentators treat this bit as “preamble” or “a restatement of legislative intent” or, bluntly, inoperative fluff. The commentators are wrong. 35 … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1

How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 3

We are still working through a passage in a law article from 1992 that sets out how Bayh-Dole is intended to work and addresses questions of faculty ownership of inventions. The issue is not with the author of an article … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 3

Is this what Congress intended when it passed Bayh-Dole?

Would Congress have passed Bayh-Dole if things had been stated clearly? It is the policy and objective of Congress that nonprofit organizations should, for inventions arising in federally supported research or development: strip inventors of their common law rights in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , | Comments Off on Is this what Congress intended when it passed Bayh-Dole?

How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 2

We are working through a paragraph from a law review article from 1992, taken perhaps out of context, but setting out how Bayh-Dole was “intended” to work. Our problem is not so much with the law professor who wrote the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 2

How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 1

I found a passage quoted from an article from 1992 in Wisconsin Law Review–“Faculty Generated Inventions: Who Owns the Golden Egg?” by Pat K. Chew, a distinguished law professor now at the University of Pittsburgh. Chew describes how Bayh-Dole is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole Is Intended to Work, circa 1992, Part 1

Invention Option Theory and Bayh-Dole Crock Work

At one point, many years ago, I thought Bayh-Dole was totally clever. I was very wrong, but here’s how I thought Bayh-Dole worked. The federal government had a general claim under federal law to own any invention made under federal … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, History | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Invention Option Theory and Bayh-Dole Crock Work

Fantasy depictions of technology transfer, 3

Despite all this discussion of university fantasy depictions of a technology transfer process, their invocation of the Bayh-Dole Act as their justification, and the reality that actual practice is nowhere like their depictions of process, success, or history, there are … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Fantasy depictions of technology transfer, 3

Fantasy depictions of technology transfer, 2

The standard accounts of the “technology transfer process” seem so clear and plausible that you may well believe they are generally accurate, even if there might be “technical details” that they gloss over. But these standard accounts are largely, almost … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Fantasy depictions of technology transfer, 2

Fantasy depictions of technology transfer

People play innovation policy with stick drawings. Inventions are depicted as proto-products rather than as broad swaths of potential. Patents “protect” inventions from competing use that would discourage private purchase and speculation. A patent is depicted as merely excluding competing … Continue reading

Posted in Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Fantasy depictions of technology transfer

On reasonable terms

Here is the definition of  to the point of practical application in the Federal Procurement Regulations, finalized in 1975, just five years before Bayh-Dole (41 CFR 1-9.107-5(a)(5)): “To the point of practical application” means to manufacture in the case of … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on On reasonable terms