Tag Archives: invention

Invention is not a thing, 14

Bayh-Dole’s public protection apparatus, even unused as it is, makes it clear that the federal invention economic system is intended to be different from that of private exploitation of patents for financial gain. In the federal economic system, patents are … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 13

There are two things that might prompt a university dealing in patents to adopt a policy default of non-exclusive licensing. One involves Bayh-Dole. The other involves a general argument directed at patenting’s public purpose–especially when a patent is held by … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 12

We have spent a great deal of time working through federal policy on research inventions to show how the idea that an invention is not a thing plays out–less well than one would like. Despite ambiguities, it would appear that … Continue reading

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

Invention is not a thing, 11

A similar analysis then can be done for the working requirement under Bayh-Dole for patents on subject inventions in other countries. Just because a contractor achieves practical application of an instance of a subject invention in the United States does … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 9

The public policy idea around Bayh-Dole march-in would appear to be straightforward. It was so in the Kennedy patent policy: make the benefits of using an invention accessible to the public in three years from the date of a patent … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 8

The question to ask is not what was intended by Bayh-Dole but rather what ought to be federal policy regarding inventions made in work for which those involved have gone out of their way to apply for federal funding. As … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 7

Here we start to get at this problem of an invention not being a thing. The instance of an invention that might get one a patent is not necessarily the instance that one would build as a prototype. Furthermore, the … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 6

An invention is a collection of things, a set, a door of opportunity and whatever an inventor and others see through that door. A patent is an inventor’s claim to exclusivity in what the inventor, perhaps with help from others, … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 3

An invention is not a thing. An invention is a set of practices and objects. Invention is broader than just what’s patentable, as is the case with Bayh-Dole’s definition of invention, which includes stuff that’s not patentable and stuff that … Continue reading

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

An invention is not a thing, 2

We are working through the logic of Bayh-Dole’s requirements on ownership of inventions made in work receiving federal support. We have made the point that an invention is not a thing–it is a category, a set, a collection of ways … Continue reading

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