Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

Who Owns Digital Learning Resources?–2

We are looking at an article by Hal Plotkin, published a couple of years ago, that argues against the extension of Bayh-Dole to cover educational materials. Plotkin creates a dichotomy between universities wanting to play at being, or pandering to, … Continue reading

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

Who Owns Digital Learning Resources?–1

In March 2016, Hal Plotkin published “Who Owns Digital Learning Resources Funded by Taxpayers,” an article on the Department of Education’s proposal to require open licensing of works created with Department funding. Plotkin notes the objections of AAU and APLU … Continue reading

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

Bayh-Dole preempts NIH policy on improper financial gain

Here’s a passage from the NIH Grants Policy Statement (Part I, Chapter 4): NIH grants are subject to requirements intended to ensure that recipient organizations handle their Federal awards responsibly. Recipients are required to adopt and enforce policies that minimize … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 9

We are working through the idea of exceptional circumstances in Bayh-Dole. There’s a problem here that lies at the root of the federal policy. Bayh-Dole states an arbitrary default–if a federal contractor acquires a patentable invention made in a project … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 8

We  have looked at the NIH’s views on exceptional circumstances. We started with Dr. Thomas’s 2008 talk, with a discussion about how his talk fundamentally misrepresented Bayh-Dole. We then checked out the PHS Technology Transfer Manual’s statements of policy and … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 7

The 2013 version of the PHS Technology Transfer Manual 607.1 on exceptional circumstances lists a set of questions that ought to be considered by those in an NIH institute or center (IC) in preparing a determination of exceptional circumstances. These … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 6

You may think it’s mean of me to pick on Dr. Thomas for a talk that’s a decade old, and presented before the Stanford v Roche case was decided. If so, then you might want to consider the Public Health … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 5

Despite the recognition that there are all sorts of federal research programs primarily directed at nonprofit-hosted research that would benefit from a determination that Bayh-Dole’s default provisions do not do a good job of promoting Bayh-Dole’s stated policy and objectives, … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 4

In more plain language, even with regard to outcomes, Bayh-Dole is crappy public policy. At best, Bayh-Dole has enabled a betting parlor managed by nonprofits for the future value of patent rights, especially those patents directed at controlling the “market” … Continue reading

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

Exceptional Circumstances in Bayh-Dole, 3

“Exceptional” circumstances are not stated by Bayh-Dole to be rare or unusual ones–they could be common. Exceptional circumstances are those circumstances in which Bayh-Dole’s arbitrary default at 35 USC 202(a) is not the best thing for promoting the policy and … Continue reading

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