Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 4

Let’s look next at academic freedom in the University of Missouri’s Collected Rules and Regulations, 310.010, “Academic Freedom and Economic Security of Academic Staff.” Academic freedom and tenure are placed in a single policy statement. We start with a statement … Continue reading

Posted in Freedom, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 3

But there’s more, of course. Under University of Missouri policy, faculty are not ordinary employees. The Collected Rules and Regulations call out faculty for special treatment. Here’s a concise statement of this fact from a policy on an employee’s ability … Continue reading

Posted in Freedom, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 2

We are considering this statement by the University Missouri in its information for inventors: MU owns all intellectual property created utilizing University facilities by an employee or student of the University of Missouri. If we turn to the University of … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 1

From time to time I still use my old Garmin GPS. I downloaded the directions voice for Australia because I rather like the accent. I call the voice “Nigel.” But in WA meaning Washington State rather than Western Australia, so … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Leave a comment

A tale told by an, er, a patent broker

I’ve called Bayh-Dole a monster, a love monster, a dismal failure–and it is all these things. Bayh-Dole was created by patent brokers, not university inventors. The patent broker vision of the innovation world is a fairy tale. In this tale, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 4

The NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement program, then, (i) ignores the distinction in the Kennedy patent policy between inventions made in research directly concerned with public health and inventions made in other research, (ii) expressly authorizes contractors to grant exclusive licenses, … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 3

The NIH’s Institutional Patent Agreement program was framed in terms of the Kennedy patent policy. It ignored, however, the Kennedy patent policy distinction between discoveries directly related to public health and other discoveries. It could do so because it set … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 2

There is another way, however, in addition to march-in, for the government to influence the commercial exploitation of health-related inventions made with federal support. Bayh-Dole has a clever design, but the people who drafted it made their mistakes. March-in has … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

The Government Patent Market for Public Health Inventions, 1

Let’s look at two things–Bayh-Dole’s standard patent right clause license to the government and 28 USC 1498. First, 28 USC 1498: Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole the Monster

The Bayh-Dole Act makes a great deal about public interest. Throughout the law are gestures toward worthy objectives–use of inventions, manufacturing in the United States, government licenses, and the right of federal agencies to step if they need to. But … Continue reading

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