Tag Archives: patent policy

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

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, Table of Links

In May 2017 I wrote a series of articles that traced the development of the University of Wisconsin’s patent policy, how the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation shaped federal policy to disenfranchise faculty inventors in favor of its own money-making ventures … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, Table of Links

Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 1: Working Through the 1991 IP Policy

Hey, let’s compare Penn State’s “Intellectual Property Agreement” from 1992 with the present version. I know, just what you were hoping to do today–identify  policy changes to see how Penn State created its IP protection racket. To get there, we’ll … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 1: Working Through the 1991 IP Policy

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 9

The beginning: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 Research deliverables Bayh-Bole, as it turns out, will be a statute that limits the scope of patent property rights in federally supported inventions, but in such an obtuse way that … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 9

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 5

Start here: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 The new 1969 Wisconsin patent policy broadens the scope of the university’s interest in patents yet further: Here is the Wisconsin IPA definition of “subject invention”: Both elements are essential … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 5

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 4

This article starts here: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 One might see how, if university administrators believe that they have become, for invention purposes, the federal sponsor of the research, that they could also come to believe … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 4

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1

Tucked into Congressional testimony in 1978 on expanding the Institutional Patent Agreement program is the 1969 University of Wisconsin patent policy. This policy is notable for a number of reasons. First, because it is an actual policy statement on patents, where … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1

Government Interest Patent Activity 1976 to 2016, Part 3

With this context, let’s return to our patent activity graphs. University and nonprofit patents with a government interest have grown from 10% of all patents citing a government interest to over 50%. This level of activity leveled off around 1998 … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, IP, Metrics | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Government Interest Patent Activity 1976 to 2016, Part 3

Sooner or later, Oklahoma IP counsel might get it right about inventions

[expanded to include further discussion of the OU policy claim to inventions] In a talk last fall (archived here), the IP counsel for the University of Oklahoma, presented this slide on the university’s patent policy: It appears to be a … Continue reading

Posted in Policy | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 1

I have previously looked at the University of Texas System intellectual property policy (“Texas wants you anyway“; “The most wonderful thing in the world“). I find myself drawn back to it again and again. In its 2012 version, the Texas … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Policy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 1