Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Policy
University Patent Practice: Flip
Here are five ways to use a patent: Nonuse Don’t practice the claimed invention and exclude all others Troll Don’t practice, demand payment if others practice the claimed invention Flip Don’t practice, and exclusively … Continue reading
Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on University Patent Practice: Flip
University Patent Practice: Troll
Here are five ways to use a patent: Nonuse Don’t practice the claimed invention and exclude all others Troll Don’t practice, demand payment if others practice the claimed invention Flip Don’t practice, and exclusively … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, IP, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on University Patent Practice: Troll
University Patent Practice: Nonuse
Here are five ways to use a patent: Nonuse Don’t practice the claimed invention and exclude all others Troll Don’t practice, demand payment if others practice the claimed invention Flip Don’t practice, and exclusively … Continue reading
Three once-concerns regarding university patents
Historically, there have been three areas of concern for the limitation of university involvement in patenting: (1) the monopoly effect of IP, (2) worrisome commercial behaviors, and (3) the problem of money as an apparent motivation. In the past, when university inventors … Continue reading
Posted in History, Policy
Tagged commercialism, Locke, Merton, money, monopoly, Pink Floyd
Comments Off on Three once-concerns regarding university patents
A patent policy’s stated objectives mean something
University patent administrators don’t see that the patents they own and manage are any different from any other patents–exclusion of use, licensing (especially exclusively, for the duration of the patent), litigation, and indifference (failing to license, but no matter) are … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on A patent policy’s stated objectives mean something
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?
A Good Policy for a Patent-Trolling University
Let’s continue the discussion of how university-owned patents might differ from other patents. We have considered the idea of “first use exhaustion” under Bayh-Dole: if the express purpose of Bayh-Dole is to use the patent system to promote utilization of … Continue reading
Posted in Litigation, Policy
Comments Off on A Good Policy for a Patent-Trolling University
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
Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983
University administrators have been fond to claim that the Bayh-Dole Act gives their universities ownership of inventions made with federal support–or a right of first refusal, or a prohibition on assigning ownership to anyone other than the university. This was … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole, Litigation, Policy
Tagged 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, Bayh-Dole, Cincinnati, Colorado State, conspiracy, patent rights clause, Rutgers, University of Southern California, Washington
Comments Off on Conspiracy against inventors’ rights and 18 USC 241/42 USC 1983