Category Archives: Bozonet

Bayh-Dole Government License–4: Licensing Despite the Government License

We are working through a recent “webinar” panel discussion on Bayh-Dole’s government license. The panelists get the government license wrong in material ways and then concern themselves with scenarios in which the government license as they represent it appears to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Government License–4: Licensing Despite the Government License

Bayh-Dole Government License–3: Sales and Have Made Paths

We are working through a recent webinar discussion of Bayh-Dole’s government license. First we reviewed the government license–it is “to practice and have practiced.” “Practice” has a long history of meaning “make, use, and sell” in the policy statements from … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Government License–3: Sales and Have Made Paths

Bayh-Dole Government License–2: Misrepresenting the Government License

We have been through the Bayh-Dole government license at 35 USC 202(c)(4) and have reviewed its sources in executive branch patent policy from 1963 to 1975. Bayh-Dole was drafted in 1978-79, so the connection to the definitions and usage in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Government License–2: Misrepresenting the Government License

More bad Bayh-Dole advice in the wild

Here are “three important questions answered” by a company specializing in Bayh-Dole compliance. (I’m sorry, Nikki. Have your people up their game.) 1) If you report an invention after the 60-day deadline, can the Government take title? Yes, the Government … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on More bad Bayh-Dole advice in the wild

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

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

A null hypothesis for the ITIF panel on Bayh-Dole

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a  self-described think tank based in Washington DC, will have a panel soon featuring Joe Allen and representatives from BIO and AUTM. Here’s the topic of the discussion: Join us on March 7 for … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , | Comments Off on A null hypothesis for the ITIF panel on Bayh-Dole

Inventor freedom and the unexpected model of innovation, 1

Consider an alternative to the present university administrator mania for patenting. Let’s start with inventor freedom and then look once more at what I call Vannevar Bush’s unexpected model of innovation. There are difficulties in the effort. First, the social … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Innovation, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Inventor freedom and the unexpected model of innovation, 1

Another NIST FAQ-up, 2

For the rest of NIST’s FAQ’d-up answer, let’s parse closely. NIST has just repeated the obvious–if an invention has been conceived and reduced to practice prior to federal funding, it is not a subject invention. The question, however, has to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Another NIST FAQ-up, 2