Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
University Patent Management, Part I
Should a patent on an invention made at a university be managed any differently from a patent on an invention made in a company or made by an independent inventor? That’s a fundamental question, and one that shapes university patent policies … Continue reading
Some Lessons Learned
Here are some things I’ve learned over the years working in university technology transfer: University technology transfer is fundamentally instruction–“a classroom for companies.” Technology transfer is a matter of instruction, opportunity, and goodwill. It is not a system that can … Continue reading
Posted in Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Some Lessons Learned
Cockroach Living in Technology Transfer
I didn’t intend to end up in university technology transfer, but I fell down a rabbit hole and here I still am. I have seen university technology transfer from both sides now. For 12 years, I worked for the University … Continue reading
Posted in History, Projects, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Cockroach Living in Technology Transfer
Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983
University administrators have been fond to claim that the Bayh-Dole Act gives their universities ownership of inventions made with federal support–or a right of first refusal, or a prohibition on assigning ownership to anyone other than the university. This was … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Litigation, Policy
Tagged 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, Bayh-Dole, Cincinnati, Colorado State, conspiracy, patent rights clause, Rutgers, University of Southern California, Washington
Comments Off on Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983
The Very Model of a Modern University IP Policy Preamble
Recently, I have worked through intellectual property policies at Michigan and Texas. No university administrator is willing to write “We demand to own your work to try to make money, preferably by partnering with monopolist speculators.” That would violate the … Continue reading
Subject Patent Exhaustion
Caltech has just sued Apple for infringement of a patent. The patent in question, “Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes” (US Patent No. 7,116,710) includes this statement of government interest: GOVERNMENT LICENSE RIGHTS The U.S. Government has … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, Commons, Litigation
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, subject invention
Comments Off on Subject Patent Exhaustion
From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 4
In 2005, BethLynn Maxwell, a patent attorney then in the Intellectual Property Section of the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas System, published a brief article on the Bayh-Dole Act, “Twenty-Five Years After Bayh-Dole” in the Office of … Continue reading
Posted in Bozonet, Metrics, Policy, Technology Transfer
1 Comment
From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 3
In Part 2 of this series I compared the preambles of the 1977 and 1988 versions of the University of Texas System patent-cum-intellectual property policies. The 1946 policy was so straightforward that it did not need a preamble. It was … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche
2 Comments
From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 2
In Part 1, we considered the 1946 University of Texas patent policy–clear, simple, smart–and the 1977 revision that grew more complicated but retained a focus on patents and the rights of inventors to decide whether to seek patents or just … Continue reading
From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 1
I have previously looked at the University of Texas System intellectual property policy (“Texas wants you anyway“; “The most wonderful thing in the world“). I find myself drawn back to it again and again. In its 2012 version, the Texas … Continue reading
Posted in Bozonet, Policy
Tagged administrative brain, mandate of heaven, patent policy, predator, University of Texas
Comments Off on From provider to predator: University of Texas patent policy, Part 1