Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

There is yet another angle. Why must the prior present assignment and Bayh-Dole be mutually exclusive? Bayh-Dole sets out to provide a uniform policy to protect the government’s interest. That interest is satisfied per the written agreement requirement, for inventors, … Continue reading →

Okay, so this is longer than I’d like. It isn’t a simple situation. The neat thing is, if it’s longer than you’d like, you can always pull out. I offer here some alternatives to the approaches of reading Bayh-Dole as … Continue reading →

“Finding 6. …. In fact, successful commercialization often depends on active inventor engagement, and, in some cases, their playing a lead role.” In fact? Or, “by way of a lazy assertion”? The AUTM-spawned confusion over the nature of agency and … Continue reading →

Finding 5: A persuasive case has not been made for converting to an inventor ownership or “free agency” system in which inventors are able to dispose their inventions without university administration approval. Well, here the report gets down to beating … Continue reading →

“Finding 4: The Bayh-Dole legal framework and the practices of universities have not seriously undermined academic norms of uninhibited inquiry, open communication, or faculty advancement based on scholarly merit. There is little evidence that IP considerations interfere with other important … Continue reading →

“Finding 3: The system put in place by the Bayh-Dole Act, that is, university ownership of inventions from publicly funded research and latitude in exercising associated IP rights subject to certain conditions and limitations, is unquestionably more effective than its … Continue reading →

Finding 2: The transition of knowledge into practice takes place through a variety of mechanisms… Here we have a conflation of knowledge and technology transfer. Technology transfer is not about knowledge transfer. Or, the report might point out that university … Continue reading →