Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Author Archives: Gerald Barnett
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 15: The Moloch Administrator
The current Penn State IP Agreement preserves many of the problems of the 1992 version, which we have previously discussed. Let’s look at the new, modern problems that the current IP Agreement adds to the mess. PSU IP–The IP policy … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 15: The Moloch Administrator
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 14: Assignment and Present Assignment
Here’s Penn State’s current IP Agreement’s sort-of assignment clause: In so agreeing, I especially acknowledge my responsibilities: (1) to assign and do hereby assign to the University (or its designee) all rights which I have or may acquire in inventions, … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Present Assignment
Tagged disclosure, present assignment, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 14: Assignment and Present Assignment
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 13: Condition or Consideration?
The Penn State IP policy makes signing the current IP Agreement a “condition of employment.” But the IP Agreement itself asserts that the agreement is “in consideration” of “employment/ appointment/association.” Somehow things are reversed. In a normal employment relationship, payment … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 13: Condition or Consideration?
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 12: Policy and Contract
Policy in a university distributes authority, identifies purposes, and establishes procedures. Policy, for instance, establishes the conditions for faculty appointments. But the actual appointment of a given faculty member requires an act by an administrator on behalf of the university. … Continue reading
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 11: The 1992 and current IP Agreements
We have been through a lot of Penn State policy now. We have looked at the 1940 IP policy, the 1991 IP policy, and the current IP policy. We have also looked at the 1992 IP Agreement and compared it … Continue reading
Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 10: Copyright
The new Penn State IP policy preserves the start of the 1991 policy paragraph that takes up copyright, but adds additional garbleness. No longer are authors “urged” to use university management services. Instead: University-directed works are those created at the … Continue reading
Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 9: Rationalizations
Penn State’s new IP policy adds a “Note” that attempts to rationalize the requirements of the policy. The 1991 policy also had a “Note” in the same location, but that note was directed to an entirely different purpose, having to … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 9: Rationalizations
Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 8: Disclosure
We are working through Penn State’s current IP policy. We have noted that the IP policy asserts that the IP Agreement, which many categories of people must sign, requires assignment of IP to the university, but the IP Agreement itself … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 8: Disclosure
Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 7: Expanding Categories
Let’s move to the second paragraph of the Penn State’s current IP policy, which continues the university’s fixation with categories of personnel who must “complete and sign” an IP Agreement: As a condition of employment, the Intellectual Property Agreement is required to … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 7: Expanding Categories
Penn State’s IP Protection Racket, 6: Problems with the RIP Loop
We are comparing Penn State’s 1991 and current IP policies to see what has been changed. When we are done, we will then do the same thing with the 1992 and current IP Agreements. Current Penn State IP policy refers to … Continue reading