Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: IP
Best practices in university invention management, 4
We are working through examples from the ipHandbook‘s advice on best practices for university ownership of inventions. All the examples feature a professor who finds ways to stick it to the university and wise words about how university officials could … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, IP, Policy
Tagged best practice, faculty, invention, ownership
Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 4
Best practices in university invention management, 3
We are working through ipHandbook’s discussion of best practices in university ownership of inventions. After a clear discussion of invention ownership–inventors own their inventions unless they have agreed to assign them or it is equitable to find that circumstances imply … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Policy, Sponsored Research
Tagged employment, invention, ownership, policy, resources, Shaw
2 Comments
Best practices in university invention management, 2
We are working through an article in the ipHandbook that argues for “best practices” in university ownership of inventions. The article spends little time discussing how faculty are employed in their research work, nor the other requirements of university policy … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged invention, ipHandbook, ownership, policy
Comments Off on Best practices in university invention management, 2
Available to one, developed by none, 2
We are working through the political argument that without a patent monopoly, federally supported research will never get used or developed into commercial products or ever benefit the public. It’s flowery language meant to lead those who hear or read … Continue reading
Available to one, developed by none, 1
A repeated argument regarding inventions made with federal support was that the public would benefit from these inventions only if companies invested substantial amounts of private capital in developing the inventions as commercial products. Without commercial development at private expense, … Continue reading
Posted in History, IP, Policy, Projects, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Available to one, developed by none, 1
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
Patent Exploitation Alternatives
A patent allows a patent owner to exclude others from practicing the invention claimed by the patent–including any of its variants. A patent owner thus has a limited monopoly on the practice of the invention–making the invention, using the invention, … Continue reading
Key Concept 4: Ad Hoc Patent Office
Ad Hoc Patent Office Institutions create ad hoc patent offices by compelling the assignment of patentable inventions, obtaining patents on those inventions issued to the institution, and then re-issuing the patents as private monopolies. Such ad hoc patent offices forestall … Continue reading
Key Concept 3: FOIL Technology
FOIL Technology FOIL is an acronym that stands for “Fragmented Ownership Institutionally Licensed.” Technology that is FOIL is fragmented across institutional owners that then seek to license their portion of the technology for development as a commercial product. FOIL is … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, IP, Sponsored Research
Comments Off on Key Concept 3: FOIL Technology
Key Concept 2: Substantial rights
Substantial Rights Substantial rights is a concept used by courts in considering whether an invention has been licensed or assigned. The substantial rights in an invention are the rights to make, use, and sell. If these rights are licensed exclusively, … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Bayh-Dole, IP
Comments Off on Key Concept 2: Substantial rights