Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
The monopoly meme, 4
We are nearing the end of examining Howard Bremer’s Senate subcommittee testimony from 1979 on a bill that was remarkably like Bayh-Dole. Bremer’s testimony is useful in helping us get at the rhetorical effect of the monopoly meme–that without a … Continue reading
The monopoly meme, 3
We are working through Howard Bremer’s testimony before a Senate subcommittee with regard to a bill remarkably like what would become Bayh-Dole. The point is to explore how the monopoly meme works in practice. Bremer gives nine principles that ought … Continue reading
The monopoly meme, 2
To get at the rhetorical workings of the monopoly meme, we are working our way through Howard Bremer’s testimony before a Senate subcommittee discussing S. 1215, an alternative bill to Bayh-Dole that was being considered after S. 414 had failed … Continue reading
The monopoly meme, 1
There’s a meme that has floated around patent management discussions for decades. It goes something like this: “What is available to all will be used by none.” Here’s an instance from the National Patent Planning Commission report (c. 1945): It … Continue reading
Federally supported inventions and public trusts
In 1933, the Supreme Court considered a claim by the United States that two employees of the National Bureau of Standards must give up a patent they had obtained on improvements to radio technology (United States v Dubilier Condenser Corp). … Continue reading
Undisclosed subject inventions made in development and commercialization contracts
A note on subject inventions not disclosed under Bayh-Dole–and a place for auditors to romp and play as auditors are wont to do, if auditors were ever to romp and play with regard to anything consequential in Bayh-Dole. What follows … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, fantasy, funding agreement, subject invention
Comments Off on Undisclosed subject inventions made in development and commercialization contracts
Bayh-Dole’s Ruby Slippers
This is a story about 35 USC 201(b), 35 USC 202(a), 37 CFR 401.9, and 37 CFR 401.14(f)(2) and (g)(1). These provisions of Bayh-Dole, implementing regulations, and standard patent rights clause, when read together, create ruby slippers. [I’ve revised the … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged (f)(2), 35 USC 202(a), Bayh-Dole, contractor, ruby slippers, subject invention
Comments Off on Bayh-Dole’s Ruby Slippers
More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations
NIST–can’t live with them, but law firms sure can. Here’s another law firm popping off about NIST’s recent revisions to Bayh-Dole’s implementing regulations and standard patent rights clause. Keep in mind that NIST’s chief counsel is already on record not … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche
Tagged (f)(2), Bayh-Dole, clueless, garble, impractical advice, NIST, present assignment, ridiculous
Comments Off on More Impractical Advice About NIST’s Changes to Bayh-Dole’s Regulations
Illusions of Bayh-Dole: “manufactured substantially” 4
Previous articles in the series are here, here, and here. The series continues here and here. There’s a simple point to make about Bayh-Dole’s section 204 requirement that exclusive licenses to use or sell products based on a subject invention … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet
Tagged 204, Bayh-Dole, clown, manufactured substantially, rabbit hole
Comments Off on Illusions of Bayh-Dole: “manufactured substantially” 4
Ten Year Note
Ten years ago, on September 4, 2008, I started the Research Enterprise blog. My idea was to use the blog to document what I had learned about university-based technology transfer over 15 years of licensing practice, and to describe ways … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged audit, Bayh-Dole, compliance, misrepresentations, subject invention, WTF
Comments Off on Ten Year Note