Category Archives: Policy

Lower drug development costs than industry reports–shock!

At the SciScip discussion group notice has been given to an article published in September 2017 in JAMA that has determined the median cost to develop a new cancer drug at $648m, much lower than the pharmaceutical industry reports for … Continue reading

Posted in Commons, Metrics, Policy, Technology Transfer | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 17

We are pretty much through with the University of Missouri’s policy scam. Let’s clean up a few last gobbets of policy ugliness. To review. The University of Missouri’s patent policy provides only two conditions under which the university may claim … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 16

University administrators insist that they, unlike their corporate counterparts, can expand their institutional claim on inventions to be anything that’s invented, and faculty must agree to this claim as a condition of employment. That is, administrators claim the right to … Continue reading

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

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 15

In Bayh-Dole, the definition of “subject invention” is not a matter of defining a term in a federal contract. Bayh-Dole is part of federal patent law, so “subject invention” is a definition of patent law. A subject invention is a … Continue reading

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

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 14

The use of “subject invention” in federal contracting goes back to at least as early as 1947, when the military used “subject invention” in research contracts. Here’s an instance from a Navy contract (quoted in Mine Safety Appliances Company v. … Continue reading

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

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 13

In the Institutional Patent Agreement program operated by the NIH, the “conception or first actual reduction to practice” scope gets changed from being only about the scope of what the government does not have to compensate a patent owner for … Continue reading

Posted in History, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 12

Hah–thought I was out of Misery articles? No, not at all. We have a few more! The distinction between conception and reduction to practice becomes important in university patent policies such as the University of Missouri’s because university administrators attempt … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 11

The introduction of a goofball definition of “invention” into the University of Missouri’s patent policy has a real effect: it transforms the scope of the policy text–especially at D.1 (inventions claimed by the university) and at D.2 (inventions that must … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 10

Darned! We have not yet dealt with the promised interrelationship between conception and actual reduction to practice as promised by Footnote 1 of the University of Missouri’s patent policy. It’s rather simple, generally, for a university patent policy that wants … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Leave a comment

University of Misery’s IP Policy Scam, 9

If the University of Missouri patent policy were aiming to provide helpful information to university personnel at a loss to understand what patents are, that would be one thing. In that case, the policy would not need to define invention … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Leave a comment