Author Archives: Gerald Barnett

The NIH’s complicity in faux Bayh-Dole and high drug prices

Posted on June 9, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s “A ’20-20′ View of Invention Reporting to the National Institutes of Health”–published by the NIH in 1995. 2. WHAT IS THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? The Bayh-Dole Act encourages researchers to patent and market their inventions … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Stanford v Roche | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The NIH’s complicity in faux Bayh-Dole and high drug prices

The banal myth of the necessary institutional monopoly

Posted on June 8, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Louis Rosenfeld wrote an insightful article in Clinical Chemistry on the discovery of insulin “Insulin: Discovery and Controversy.” Three collaborators in the research had a disagreement over inventive contributions to various portions of the work and to settle their disputes gave … Continue reading →

Posted in Innovation, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The banal myth of the necessary institutional monopoly

Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

Posted on June 7, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Last year (March 2016), Joe Allen gave a talk at the University of Pittsburgh, “Patent Ownership Under Bayh-Dole, reported in the University Times. Called “a key architect of the Bayh-Dole Act,” Allen manages to fill a talk summary with mostly … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bayh-Dole nonsense in a talk at the University of Pittsburgh

The Special Special Case

Posted on June 6, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Of all the university research findings possible, inventions–because of patents–attract the attention. Everything else about research–data, findings, experimental setups, reports, how to do things–is pretty much ignored. No one spent time worrying about whether data or findings would be “made … Continue reading →

Posted in Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The Special Special Case

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 3

Posted on June 5, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

This third form of mixing–intentional–created the problem for the PHS and universities in the area of medicinal chemistry. It was not mixing in the abstract; not mixing in an open university environment, but rather intentional mixing. The drug industry had … Continue reading →

Posted in History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 3

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 2

Posted on June 4, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

We can distinguish three forms of “mixing” of funding. (1) Two or more projects, each funded on different terms, in which their participants, having the freedom of the university, talk with one another, learn things, and apply what they learn … Continue reading →

Posted in History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 2

There are no Bayh-Doles in Canada

Posted on June 3, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

In a recent hearing held by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, made some valuable remarks, which he has published at his blog. Geist … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Innovation, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on There are no Bayh-Doles in Canada

The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 1

Posted on June 3, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

The Council on Government Relations, a university front group, published a “tutorial” that advocated that universities adopt a “uniform” policy on patents. COGR’s argument was that since administrators wanted to be able to “mix” funding from different sources, and the government … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on The bogus argument for “mixing” research funds, 1

How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 5

Posted on June 2, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Moving to a new platform that’s really what Vannever Bush first proposed If you see this difference between an approach that transfers the government’s right and the Bayh-Dole approach, which attempts to transfer ownership of patentable inventions directly to institutions, … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Bozonet, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 5

How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 4

Posted on June 1, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Bayh-Dole’s method of operation The IPA did not disturb patent law–it imposed its public convent requirements on the use of patents as a matter of federal contract. Bayh-Dole was different in two ways. First, Bayh-Dole dictated executive branch contracting policy. … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 4