Tag Archives: policy

University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-3

Posted on August 29, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

To show the limits of policy rationalizations over the university use of patents to benefit the public, let’s consider only those university inventions that have “worth”–that aren’t (in the eyes of university administrators, at least) “worthless.” If we work this … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-3

USC still misrepresents Bayh-Dole, 2018 version-Fitt 3

Posted on August 5, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Now, for comedy. USC turns from the obligations of the Bayh-Dole act for universities to technology transfer: Benefits of disclosure and technology transfer include: Bayh-Dole does not require technology transfer. A contractor may comply with Bayh-Dole by using its subject … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on USC still misrepresents Bayh-Dole, 2018 version-Fitt 3

Bayh-Dole is thin soup when it comes to federal innovation policy

Posted on April 18, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

NIST wants march-in for Bayh-Dole’s section 203(a)(2) and (3) to be for “national emergencies” only. Section (a)(2) concerns health or safety needs that are not “reasonably satisfied.” Section (a)(3) concerns regulatory requirements that are not “reasonably satisfied.”  But the *price* … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole is thin soup when it comes to federal innovation policy

Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 2

Posted on April 2, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through Bayh-Dole’s statement of policy at 35 USC 200 on the premise that this statement of policy, a part of patent law, has a material effect on the patent property rights of all inventions within the scope … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 2

Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1

Posted on April 1, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole, part of federal patent law, starts with a statement of “Policy and Objective” at 35 USC 200. Usually, commentators treat this bit as “preamble” or “a restatement of legislative intent” or, bluntly, inoperative fluff. The commentators are wrong. 35 … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s patent law policy on patent property rights, 1

Pensé and Perspectivability-1

Posted on January 21, 2019 by Gerald Barnett

Some of you may have noticed that over the years I have grown more critical of the Bayh-Dole Act and especially of the people who prop it up with various forms of bluffery. The law is based on failed policy … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Pensé and Perspectivability-1

On advocative fakery of Bayh-Dole

Posted on December 4, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

Advocates of Bayh-Dole tell a fake history. They say that before Bayh-Dole, the federal government owned all inventions made with federal support. They say that Bayh-Dole gave universities the right to take ownership of inventions made with federal support. They … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on On advocative fakery of Bayh-Dole

Best practices in university invention management, 3

Posted on June 6, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through ipHandbook’s discussion of best practices in university ownership of inventions. After a clear discussion of invention ownership–inventors own their inventions unless they have agreed to assign them or it is equitable to find that circumstances imply … Continue reading →

Posted in IP, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Best practices in university invention management, 2

Posted on June 5, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

We are working through an article in the ipHandbook that argues for “best practices” in university ownership of inventions.  The article spends little time discussing how faculty are employed in their research work, nor the other requirements of university policy … Continue reading →

Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 2

Best practices in university invention management, 1

Posted on June 4, 2018 by Gerald Barnett

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 , , , | Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 1