Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Search on RE: Bayh-Dole provisions and subject inventions
Here’s a recent search on Research Enterprise: “bayh-dole provisions only apply to subject inventions.” Is it a question? Is it an assertion? Does Bayh-Dole apply only to subject inventions? No. Some Bayh-Dole provisions do apply to subject inventions, but much … Continue reading
The non-preference for US manufacturing under Bayh-Dole
A recent search at RE was looking for “preference for manufacturing in US under Bayh-Dole.” There’s a series of articles here on 35 USC 204. There’s also discussion of the related march-in provision at 35 USC 203(a)(4) and the broader … Continue reading
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 11: Two key provisions
A university patent policy designed to promote effective technology transfer will have these key provisions: Voluntary participation Default institutional non-exclusive FRAND offer These are key elements. FRAND is “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.” We will work through the reasons why these … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged effective, licensing, money, shit pie, technology transfer
Leave a comment
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 10: Exclusivity compared
Now let’s look at a university that defaults to seeking an exclusive patent licensee instead. That comparison is even worse for leading with a patent license vs research review. There are way fewer folks out there in the technical world … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged eat and fart, effective, exclusivity, patent policy
Leave a comment
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 9: Booking transfer income
We are considering scenarios that involve patentable inventions as a way to get at what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer. We compared two scenarios. In the first, a university offers a non-exclusive patent … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged no charge, non-exclusive license, patenting costs
Leave a comment
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 8: Transfer parameters
We are comparing two technology transfer scenarios as a way to get at effective university technology transfer policy. Here are the scenarios again: Scenario 1: University offers a non-exclusive patent license for $5,000 with no post-license assistance other than delivery … Continue reading
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 7: Transfer pathways
We are working through what a university patent policy should look like to support effective technology transfer practices. The Eat and Fart model–claim ownership of everything and mostly fart away opportunities to transfer so long as one exclusive deal every … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged leading asset, patent license, scenario, transfer pathway, workshop
Leave a comment
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 6: Consider two scenarios
Once in Weisskirchen a man said: . “I never, never do that.” At the exact same time in Mühlhausen a woman said: “Beef with horseradish.” Both of them said what they said, because there was no other way. from “Glocke.” … Continue reading
University Patent Policy for Effective Technology Transfer, 5: Transfer relationships and leading assets
We are working on university patent policies for effective technology transfer. I have described the Eat and Fart model that dominates university patent practice: eat everything, fart a lot, and drop a financial turd once every decade or two to … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged adjacent possible, dinking, eat and fart, effective, relationship, technology transfer
Leave a comment
Crap, crap, crap, Bayh-Dole, and crap talking points
Think of these as presentation slides, but without the actual mental pain of seeing slides. Bayh-Dole has failed to produce the outcomes claimed has destroyed university research freedom and technology transfer is a drafting nightmare of inconsistencies, half-hearted gestures, and … Continue reading