Cities of Innovation

Posted on June 1, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Geoffrey West in Edge 343 (WHY CITIES KEEP GROWING, CORPORATIONS AND PEOPLE ALWAYS DIE, AND LIFE GETS FASTER):

“Well, Google is a bit of an exception, because it still tolerates some of that. But most companies start out probably with some of that buzz. But the data indicates that at about 50 employees to a hundred that buzz starts to stop. A company that was more multi dimensional, more evolved, becomes uni dimensional. It closes down.

“It’s not surprising to learn that when manufacturing companies are on a down turn, they decrease research and development, and in fact in some cases, do actually get rid of it, thinking this is “oh, we can get that back in two years we’ll be back on track.”

“Well, this kind of thinking kills them. This is part of the killing, and this is part of the change from superlinear to sublinear, namely companies allow themselves to be dominated by bureaucracy and administration over creativity and innovation, and unfortunately, it’s necessary. You cannot run a company without administrative. Someone has got to take care of the taxes and the bills and the cleaning the floors and the maintenance of the building and all the rest of that stuff. You need it. And the question is, “can you do it without it dominating the company?” The data suggests that you can’t.

I want to take this toward innovation administration, which is almost an oxymoron.  Let’s call it an abymoron.  Continue reading →

Posted in Commons, IP, Policy, Projects, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Cities of Innovation

Spinning University Commercialization

Posted on May 23, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

A cluster of news articles has been published recently about how the incoming president at the University of Washington will boost technology transfer.

Right off, this is rather odd.  One would think that the lead articles about a new university president might address the budget crisis in education, or the growing emphasis on out of state students, or even the challenge in balancing the athletics program with academics.  Continue reading →

Posted in Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Spinning University Commercialization

Ten reasons universities should use outside IP counsel

Posted on May 18, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I was commenting recently on the problems of bringing patent counsel into a university technology transfer operation.  Arguments in favor are cost savings, direct control over patent work, consistency, and convenience.   But the reasons for not doing so are stronger.  As I worked through the matter, I realized it was not just an argument, but a list.   Continue reading →

Posted in IP, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Ten reasons universities should use outside IP counsel

Complex IP Management: Real and Imaginary

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I want to look at a transition point in the framing of IP management. This discussion is about how management has structure. I argue that IP management is complex, and just like complex numbers, it has a real component, in which people come to the aid of other people, and an imaginary component, in which managers do things to facilitate management itself. For university IP management, most of the management turns out to be of this imaginary sort.

Consider a situation in which there is only one invention made in research at a university. Here it comes, a single invention, arising in a research team, patentable and all that. Continue reading →

Posted in Metrics, Policy, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Complex IP Management: Real and Imaginary

Collectivist and individualist innovation

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I have been reading Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. It’s a series of essays critiquing the economics of a planned society, arguing instead in favor of markets and individual choices. Hayek argues that the ideals that give rise to socialist or collectivist thought produce a new set of ideals as the effort to create a planned society moves from ideals to practical matters such as enforcement.

This transformation, from roots in liberal democracy to a demand for central control–because such control is “right”–represents a fundamental danger to liberal society. All the more so for innovation in a liberal society. How can one innovate in  an orderly and just way without the approval of central planners? Without the approval of the power brokers of the status quo? Without university officials “acting in the public interest”?  Continue reading →

Posted in Bozonet, Policy, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Collectivist and individualist innovation

A Linear Model in the Wild

Posted on May 12, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I came across a well developed instance of the Linear Model of innovation in a new RFP from USAID.  The diagram in the RFP wasn’t the best quality, so it’s not the crispest of images, but have a look anyway:

The model provides a narrative in which basic research leads to field implementation, guided along the way by policy, which monitors and validates progress at each step of the way.   One starts with strategic planning, moves to applied research that develops tools and approaches, and from there jumps to “catalytic activity to facilitate adoption of product”, and completes with a “country-level program” results in “regular use”.

It’s so thoroughly rationalized it’s hard to object.  Research to use, following a planned and monitored–a managed pathway, evaluated, validated, measured.  I think this actually happens at times, but I don’t think it is even close to being a general depiction of how innovation comes about.  Continue reading →

Posted in IP, Policy, Social Science | Comments Off on A Linear Model in the Wild

University invention law in Ohio [updated with translations]

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

Here’s an interesting bit from the Ohio Revised Code (my emphasis in the text):

3345.14 Rights to and interests in discoveries, inventions or patents – establishment of rules.

(B) All rights to and interests in discoveries, inventions, or patents which result from research or investigation conducted in any experiment station, bureau, laboratory, research facility, or other facility of any state college or university, or by employees of any state college or university acting within the scope of their employment or with funding, equipment, or infrastructure provided by or through any state college or university, shall be the sole property of that college or university. No person, firm, association, corporation, or governmental agency which uses the facilities of such college or university in connection with such research or investigation and no faculty member, employee, or student of such college or university participating in or making such discoveries or inventions, shall have any rights to or interests in such discoveries or inventions, including income therefrom, except as may, by determination of the board of trustees of such college or university, be assigned, licensed, transferred, or paid to such persons or entities in accordance with division (C) of this section or in accordance with rules adopted under division (D) of this section.

A number of interesting things are going on here. First, there’s no definition of invention. But there is elsewhere in the ORC, at 1345.61, in conjunction with invention development services (for which universities and non-profits, among others, are exempt)(again, my emphasis):

(E) “Invention” means a discovery, process, machine, design, formulation, product, concept, or idea, or any combination of them, whether patentable or not.

That is, an invention is an invention whether it is an invention or not. Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, IP, Policy | Tagged , | Comments Off on University invention law in Ohio [updated with translations]

You can't manage what you are clueless in measuring

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

From time to time in technology transfer I hear the quip “you can’t manage what you can’t/don’t measure.” The general drift of the quip is that something has to be counted or measured to determine whether a university IP program is any good. The idea is that by means of metrics people will be “held accountable” or “given incentives” and this focus on the “numbers” translates into more efficient, if not more effective work. Unfortunately, the quip is wrong on a number of levels. It reflects a bogus desire to create data to that makes a good impression, except in the bozonet, where it is more like a mating call. Continue reading →

Posted in Bozonet, Metrics, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on You can't manage what you are clueless in measuring

Partial Patterns

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

We are attracted to patterns.  A pattern appeals to our sense of order and gives us the impressing that things are following a law, can be predicted, everything in a system.   It’s all nice.

Innovation, however, may suggestion a change in a pattern, a repair of a break or defect in a pattern, or an addition or completion of the pattern.  Adding to a pattern is a matter for innovation from within.  Adding to a pattern is like working towards the official future, where innovation means improvement under orderly control of planning and execution.   Fixing a pattern is similar, but involves replacing defective parts with working ones, and may mean accommodating or mitigating the work of others.  Continue reading →

Posted in Bozonet, Metrics, Policy, Social Science, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on Partial Patterns

The imp of the improbable

Posted on May 2, 2011 by Gerald Barnett

I’m working through The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb.   The book is about the ways in which we underestimate the improbable.  More deeply, it is about how little we know about the world and how much we fool ourselves into thinking that we do know it, at the expense of actually dealing with the uncertainties of the world as it is.   Take for instance, this thought:

The strategy for the discoverers and entrepreneurs is to rely less on top-down planning and focus on maximum tinkering and recognizing opportunities when they present themselves….  [T]he reason free markets work is because they allow people to be lucky, thanks to aggressive trial and error, not by giving rewards or “incentives” for skill. Continue reading →

Posted in Bayh-Dole, Policy, Technology Transfer | Comments Off on The imp of the improbable