Category Archives: Bayh-Dole

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

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

How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 3

Posted on May 31, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Patents the government issues to itself The attributes of ordinary patents make little sense in the context of the federal government issuing to itself a patent. The government has no profit motive from the patent system. The U.S. patent system … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Sponsored Research | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 3

How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 2

Posted on May 30, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

The nature of federal research contracts Let’s work through how Bayh-Dole might have been structured. We start with the nature of federal contracts. A federal contract is not quite like a conventional contract formed under state laws. The federal government … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Vannever Bush | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 2

How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 1

Posted on May 29, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

This article starts a series on structural problems in Bayh-Dole. As an architecture to take ownership of inventions from university investigators, Bayh-Dole suffers from significant flaws. The effort by university patent brokers and their biotech partners has been to cover … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Stanford v Roche | Comments Off on How Bayh-Dole went wrong and what might be done, 1

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 14

Posted on May 28, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

The start is here: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 Three sorts of university invention We can then distinguish three sorts of invention arising in federally funded research at universities: inventive tools, inventive tools that can be sold … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Freedom, History, Policy | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 14

The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 13

Posted on May 27, 2017 by Gerald Barnett

Things start here: The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 1 The Harbridge House report According to the Harbridge House report on federal patent policy, from the 1930s until the 1950s, the pharmaceutical industry was the primary source of funding … Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, History, Policy, Sponsored Research | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The IPA and Wisconsin’s 1969 Patent Policy, 13