Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: IP
Regulatory limitations on fun-lovin’ university patent administrators
My argument is that university patents aren’t like other patents–not like corporate patents, not like entrepreneur patents, not like speculator patents. My argument also is that universities are limited in how they manage patents, and therefore they are not in … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Regulatory limitations on fun-lovin’ university patent administrators
Should universities manage patents like corporations do?
We have discussed how university-owned patents are not like other patents. A university owner of patents is not free to do just anything with a patent. A university-held patent is not simply a property right–there are limitations (though many university patent administrators are … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Litigation, Metrics, Policy
Comments Off on Should universities manage patents like corporations do?
Free Competition and Reasonable Pricing of Products Based on Subject Inventions
I have argued that the Bayh-Dole Act establishes, for inventions made with federal support at universities, a principle of patent exhaustion. We might call it a “first use” exhaustion of patent rights. Since the express, statutory purpose of the Act … Continue reading
University Patent Management, Part I
Should a patent on an invention made at a university be managed any differently from a patent on an invention made in a company or made by an independent inventor? That’s a fundamental question, and one that shapes university patent policies … Continue reading
Abstraction as an Obfuscating Drafting Technique in University Patent Policies
The Arizona Board of Regents intellectual property policy fails to state, simply, that the Board expects to own patentable inventions made by employees who have agreed to assign their inventions to the Board. Instead, the Board policy fusses around with … Continue reading
Posted in Bozonet, IP, Policy
Tagged Arizona State, holes, metonymy, NYU, obfuscation, policy, Washington University
Comments Off on Abstraction as an Obfuscating Drafting Technique in University Patent Policies
When to disclose inventions? Part I. Arizona State
Here is a basic question: When should university-based inventors disclose their inventions to the university administration? This is a remarkably difficult question. Is it when the invention is “made”? If so, what does it mean to “make” an invention? What … Continue reading
The University of Michigan Mess of an Old Patent Policy, Part IV
In a series of three articles (here, here, and here), I showed how the University of Michigan intellectual property policy apparatus managed–or didn’t manage–patents and copyrights. One problem is Regents Bylaw 3.10. The Bylaw sets out conditions under which it is … Continue reading
The University of Michigan’s Mess of a Copyright Policy, Part III
Part I of this series looked at the University of Michigan 1944 patent policy and its transmogrified afterlife as Regents Bylaw 3.10, and the strange Supplemental Appointment Information invention present assignment document that claims to derive from Bylaw 3.10. Part … Continue reading
Posted in Bozonet, Freedom, IP, Policy, Present Assignment
Comments Off on The University of Michigan’s Mess of a Copyright Policy, Part III
The University of Michigan’s Mess of a Technology Transfer Policy, Part II
In Part I of this series, we looked at the University of Michigan patent policy from 1944, which was still in effect in 1962, its unsettled relationship to the Board of Regents Bylaw 3.10, and a present assignment form last … Continue reading
The rise of “employee” as a means to pervert university IP policy
We live in a society dominated by the public stock corporation and the manner in which it engages work. It has only been since the late 19th century that the public stock corporation has come to have this role, though … Continue reading