Monthly Archives: June 2011

Bozocratic Dumbthink Alert

DLA Piper sent me an “alert” email with the heading “A Victory for Roche in a Case over Inventors’ Rights.” It includes this advice: The decision re-emphasizes the importance of university employers to require all employees and consultants to execute … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | 1 Comment

Born to Waxen Wood

Vivek Wadhwa’s column at The Washington Post gets at the issues nicely.  This is a golden opportunity, he writes, to rethink the university approach to research commercialization. Bayh-Dole is good law.  But the university implementation of it is not good … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Born to Waxen Wood

What we learn from Stanford v. Roche

There are some valuable insights, but first the obvious.  Short form, big picture. 1.  Bayh-Dole is no vesting statute. 2.  Inventors own their inventions made with federal support. 3.  University administrators don’t understand Bayh-Dole or innovation. 4.  AUTM is an … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on What we learn from Stanford v. Roche

A Koan

The innovateur was compelled to visit first the City of Clowns.  The clowns took the innovation from the innovateur. The clowns were not funny, and they were not helpful, and they were not innovative.  The innovateur watched smoke rise from … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on A Koan

Bozonet Theory Review

Let’s review some basic bozonet theory. Transmission Congestion produces imitative practice When an organization, profession, or activity takes in rapidly a number of new practitioners without a formal course of training, and requires expertise of these practitioners, and these new … Continue reading

Posted in Bozonet, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Bozonet Theory Review

The Dark Lesson

There is a dark lesson in the Stanford v. Roche situation. For two years, university patent administrators have led an all-out attack on research inventors, have distorted Bayh-Dole, and demonstrated they form a monoculture of inventor-loathing, bureaucracy-creating political operators. It’s … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The Dark Lesson

100% Bayh-Dole

There’s talk that the Stanford v. Roche decision somehow forces a change in university practice from using promises to assign in patent agreements to present assignments of future inventions. This is nonsense. The same loons who could not read Bayh-Dole … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on 100% Bayh-Dole

Seven Claims about Bayh-Dole

Let’s look at some of the claims made about Bayh-Dole. 1.  Bayh-Dole is about commercialization. Only a little tiny bit.  Get over it. No, really.  Look at the objectives of the Act, at 35 USC 200.  The primary emphasis is … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Seven Claims about Bayh-Dole

Harmonizing with the Wrong Thing

Which is more important, to harmonize US patent law with that of other countries, or to keep it consistent with the insights expressed in the US Constitution, which supports progress through the personal rights of inventors? The Constitution allows the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy | Comments Off on Harmonizing with the Wrong Thing

Some of my favorite quotes

From the Opinion: The Act’s disposition of rights—like much of the rest of the Bayh-Dole Act—serves to clarify the order of priority of rights between the Federal Government and a federal contractor in a federally funded invention thatalready belongs to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Comments Off on Some of my favorite quotes