Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 3

We are working through Niels Reimers’s op/ed in the Mercury News, published last April (2021) and now being used by the Bayh-Dole Coalition, a lobbying organization backed by a number of universities and front groups, to try to prevent Bayh-Dole’s … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 3

Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 2

We are working through an op/ed published in April 2021 by Niels Reimers, one of the recognized university TLO leaders from the 1970s on. We are working through it now because the Bayh-Dole Coalition is using quotes from it to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Startups | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 2

Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 1

I feel like Charlie Chaplin in a pie factory. Before I could work through an op/ed by Niels Reimers in the Mercury News last April (2021) that the Bayh-Dole Coalition has dredged up to contest the use of march-in to … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Commons, Policy, Stanford v Roche, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Undermining Bayh-Dole by relying on it? 1

Drexel’s Bogus Description of Bayh-Dole, 3

We are nearly done working through Drexel’s bogus badness about Bayh-Dole. We are considering commercialization. Drexel says Bayh-Dole requires Drexel to commercialize inventions. And Bayh-Dole doesn’t say that. Someone’s gotta be wrong. Oh, hey! I think it’s Drexel! The basic … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Drexel’s Bogus Description of Bayh-Dole, 3

Drexel’s Bogus Description of Bayh-Dole, 2

We are working through Drexel’s bogus badness about Bayh-Dole, hoping in the process to learn something not bogus about Bayh-Dole–and to see just how sloppy, loose, and confused Drexel folks are about Bayh-Dole, and by extension about technology transfer. Drexel’s … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Drexel’s Bogus Description of Bayh-Dole, 2

Drexel’s Bogus Description of Bayh-Dole, 1

Drexel University’s Office of Research and Innovation has a discussion of the Bayh-Dole Act posted at their web site. They get almost everything wrong about Bayh-Dole–but one thing perfectly right! Let’s work through their bogus badness, and in the process … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Drexel’s Bogus Description of Bayh-Dole, 1

Latkerstein’s Monster, 2

The monopoly meme argument is that no one would have ever received any cisplatin if not for an exclusive license to motivate a big drug company to “develop” the drug as a product. Left out is the idea that the … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Latkerstein’s Monster, 2

Latkerstein’s Monster, 1

I ran a Twitter thread on this topic. Here’s more of the same. The Bayh-Dole Coalition describes Bayh-Dole as part of a “delicate balance of the university techtransfer system.” My experience differs. There is no “delicate balance.” Bayh-Dole is a … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Latkerstein’s Monster, 1

Nicotine Patches, 4

Let’s review where we have got to in this dive into the history of nicotine patches. The UC did not transfer technology in the nicotine patch case. Ciba-Geigy did not need the UC technology–it seems to have wanted the patent … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Nicotine Patches, 4

Nicotine Patches, 3

Now for the University of California, Los Angeles. The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) wrote up the UC nicotine patch story with the headline “Turning Quitters Into Winners: The Nicotine Patch Success Story” as part of their “Better World … Continue reading

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Nicotine Patches, 3