I suppose the trouble of reports by committees is that they end up trying to represent a consensus view, a set of compromises that in the drafting make everyone happy.
This can look like thumb pie–where everyone has their bit in a jumble that isn’t coherent, but is arranged to look orderly. Or this can take the form of abstracting the language until no one can tell there are differences (so, use IP rather than patent because no one can tell that copyrights and patents have huge practice differences). Or this can simply be a power play to assert that folks have studied things, it’s all rather simple, and just lay out more of the same. What a relief to all those tech transfer folks.
But here’s the thing. Why is there no apparent debate? Why are there no minority views? Why is tech transfer practice such a monoculture? And why would anyone want to keep it that way? Is it a love feast for monotonists?
No one cares. These folks don’t care. It’s like a high school term paper. Make it look good. Don’t say anything new or insightful. Repeat more of the same, whatever the same is. The boredom before the meltdown.
One might think technology transfer has to do with research inventions that really matter, that are going to change society, that are going to astound and surprise and revolutionize. But no, it’s just dull stuff involving IP among other routine stuff. Nothing here, folks, move along, “innovation” is just another commodity term, code for “leave us alone, we’re university types”.