Tag Archives: policy

University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 4: The Eat and Fart Model

No one in their right mind reads a book primarily because it has a copyright. “Gosh, all these books in the public domain–I need to find one with a solid, enforced copyright!” Similarly, technologists with stable brains do not seek … Continue reading

Posted in Metrics, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bayh-Dole disruptions of research and innovation

Bayh-Dole allows nonprofits and small businesses to retain title to inventions made in federally funded work. That is, the nonprofit or small business must first obtain title on their own. For businesses, this is straightforward as businesses routinely assign employees … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole disruptions of research and innovation

University inventions that aren’t exactly worthless-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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