Dag Wags Dog

Stanford v Roche has put some folks into a tizzy. Since the tizzy drives to the heart of Bayh-Dole, it’s worth spending some time with it. For those that have been following my efforts to work through the issues, you understand stuff like retain as in attorney not retain as in water.

For anyone new to this: keep in mind that I think AUTM’s actions in this affair are wrong, shameful, and I am glad I am no longer a member, but I truly do not know how Stanford v. Roche will turn out and whatever I come up with has to do with how I believe the law operations, and how university technology transfer ought to function, and how membership organizations should function when taking public and lobbying positions.

I have good friends at Stanford—er, at least did, maybe still do—and I don’t see why I wouldn’t have good friends at Roche. There is a dispute, there’s a lot riding on it, and we all have to deal with that.

It’s just that I also choose not to be mercenary. I choose not to be in a code of silence. I think speaking out, and being clear about it, matters. University IP management need not be a monoculture. It need not be so afraid that no one can express a point of view at odds with AUTM or the status quo or the consensus or the “best practices”. So here’s to diversity and openness, and a willingness have the discussion rather than to shrink back.

My concern in all this is over whether a leading organization claiming to represent university technology transfer (AUTM) knows its founding law (Bayh-Dole). I don’t think they do. I think they would rather be mercenary about it. They would rather try to ram through a federal pre-emption to prior, valid contracts and transactions and disrupt 30 years of practice–including their own–in the disposition of patent rights than to deal with the realistic lessons and outcomes from a current dispute. Dag wags dog.