Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Policy
A sense of proportion–5
One can see, then, where Bayh-Dole comes into play in this meaningless mess. Bayh-Dole was drafted by the same folks who created the IPA system. The IPA system was shut down in 1978 as ineffective and contrary to public policy. … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Fun, History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer
Tagged Bayh-Dole, franken law, IPA, Stanford v Roche
Comments Off on A sense of proportion–5
A sense of proportion–4
To lay it out in bullet points, the now dominant university patent-based approach to research inventions defaulting to exclusive licenses: fragments invention platforms with no way to restore them attracts speculative investors while pushing away companies raises barriers to early … Continue reading
Posted in Fun, History, Innovation, Policy, Technology Transfer
Tagged catch-22, invention, patent, protection, technology transfer
Comments Off on A sense of proportion–4
A sense of proportion–3
Prior to federal funding becoming the dominant source of university research funding, most universities operated their invention policies with a review committee that made recommendations to the university president with regard to particular inventions. The volume of invention reporting was … Continue reading
Posted in History, Policy, Sponsored Research, Technology Transfer
Tagged exclusive license, invention, Research Corporation, technnology transfer
Comments Off on A sense of proportion–3
A sense of proportion–2
University administrators have engaged in a thirty-year effort of research invention management that creates patent gridlock for what amounts to a tiny bit of the overall inventive activity in the country. That’s the black border area on this nice blue … Continue reading
Posted in Fun, History, Policy, Sponsored Research
Tagged block fest, invention, IPA, patent, Research Corporation, WARF
Comments Off on A sense of proportion–2
“Protection” of inventions in Bayh-Dole
Twitter thread: Federal patent law uses “protect” with respect to inventions only in Bayh-Dole’s strange definition of invention at 35 USC 201(d): “is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under this title” What does it mean to “protect” an … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy
Tagged Bayh-Dole, invention, public interest, speculation
Comments Off on “Protection” of inventions in Bayh-Dole
Invention is not a thing, 12: Licensing practices that recognize inventions aren’t things
We have spent a great deal of time working through federal policy on research inventions to show how the idea that an invention is not a thing plays out–less well than one would like. Despite ambiguities, it would appear that … Continue reading
An invention is not a thing, 6: Invention holes, practical application, and development
An invention is a collection of things, a set, a door of opportunity and whatever an inventor and others see through that door. A patent is an inventor’s claim to exclusivity in what the inventor, perhaps with help from others, … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy
Tagged invention, invention hole, patent policy, practical application
Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 6: Invention holes, practical application, and development
An invention is not a thing, 4: Compounds patented by GSK
An invention is not a thing, it is a collection or set. Consider this invention, “Compounds.” A US patent (10,428,078) was issued to GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited on October 1, 2019–just a few days ago. An earlier patent (10,125,141) … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy
Tagged compound, entry gate, Lp-PLA
Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 4: Compounds patented by GSK
An invention is not a thing, 2: The fringe cases and federal policy
We are working through the logic of Bayh-Dole’s requirements on ownership of inventions made in work receiving federal support. We have made the point that an invention is not a thing–it is a category, a set, a collection of ways … Continue reading
An invention is not a thing, 1: the “may be patentable” category
An invention is not a thing. An invention not a “cotton gin” or a “light bulb,” even though a cotton gin and a light bulb were once inventive. It doesn’t help to use things as proxies for inventions. An invention … Continue reading