The Stanford v. Roche case helps us understand a few things. First, that some leading lights in university technology transfer don’t have a grip on Bayh-Dole or public policy around innovation. There’s plenty to be debated, and we get it wrong sometimes, but this is an issue now before the Supreme Court involving the core legislation founding these folks’ practice, and you’d think they’d work at it a bit. Maybe consult with university faculty on the matter.
What I don’t like most is the creepy feeling that the AUTM/WARF/MIT briefs are coordinated and deliberate in their mishandling of Bayh-Dole. Tell me it’s all just sloppiness. That would be a relief.