Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
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
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
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 half-eaten, invention, policy, productization, worth
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
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
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
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
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 bluffing, experiences, NIPIA, policy, project, research enterprise
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 Bayh-Dole, monopoly meme, policy
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 employment, invention, ownership, policy, resources, Shaw
2 Comments