Category Archives: Bozonet

The AUTM CEO’s Speech, Fitt 4

We are about done with the AUTM CEO’s speech at the NIST symposium on “unleasing American innovation.” Yes, it is trash, so we are trashing it. But there’s a purpose here. It’s not just that there is a difference of … Continue reading

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

The AUTM CEOs Speech, Fitt 3

We are working through a recent talk by the CEO of the Association of University Technology Managers at a symposium hosted by NIST on “unleashing American innovation.” The AUTM CEO now turns to a deeper neurosis that has almost nothing … Continue reading

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

The AUTM CEOs Speech, Fitt 2

We are working through a speech that the CEO of the Association of University Technology Managers gave at a recent symposium sponsored by NIST with the dubious title “Unleashing American Innovation.” Our CEO has made pompous claims about his organization … Continue reading

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

The AUTM CEOs Speech, Fitt 1

As part of NIST’s recent symposium on “unleashing American innovation,” the CEO of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) read a talk. Let’s work through his talk and see what we can learn. I have made a transcript so … Continue reading

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

Best practices in university invention management, 1

Things get complicated that don’t have to be complicated when it comes to university ownership of inventions. Administrators make things complicated, then argue for lots of money to pay for the talent to navigate those complications, and then more money … Continue reading

Posted in Agreements, Bozonet, Freedom, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 4

We are working through the UpCounsel account of Bayh-Dole. It’s not all terrible. There are some useful points to come. Overall, however, the work here is sloppy, misleading, not what one would expect for a barrel full of part-time legal … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet | Tagged , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole Up Your Counsel, 4

Political bluffing as Bayh-Dole policy advice, 2

This, then, is the “policy” of Bayh-Dole that Allen champions–that nonprofits can and should deal in patent monopolies. Some historical bluffing from Allen’s policy advice (his emphasis): At that time the federal government funded about half of the R&D in … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Political bluffing as Bayh-Dole policy advice, 2

Political bluffing as Bayh-Dole policy advice, 1

In a once-notorious essay (“Is Business Bluffing Ethical“) Albert Carr, a former presidential advisor, argues that business “bluffing” is ethical because business is based on games, and in games bluffing is perfectly acceptable. Same for politics. If everyone expects everyone … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Political bluffing as Bayh-Dole policy advice, 1

The Basic Policy Question Behind Bayh-Dole

There’s one simple issue: Should the federal government subsidize with public funding for nonprofit research the creation of patent monopolies? There it is. The answer that has dominated for thirty-five years is “Yes.” How comfortable are you with that? Gut-level? … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Basic Policy Question Behind Bayh-Dole

Institutional patent derangement syndrome

The discussion of university ownership of patents on inventions made in faculty-led research invariably adopts the singular. Consider one invention at one university. Now, doesn’t it make sense that university administrators should take over that invention for the good of … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Institutional patent derangement syndrome