Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Tag Archives: invention
Invention is not a thing, 13
There are two things that might prompt a university dealing in patents to adopt a policy default of non-exclusive licensing. One involves Bayh-Dole. The other involves a general argument directed at patenting’s public purpose–especially when a patent is held by … Continue reading
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
Invention is not a thing, 11: Working requirements and the scope of “work”
A similar analysis then can be done for the working requirement under Bayh-Dole for patents on subject inventions in other countries. Just because a contractor achieves practical application of an instance of a subject invention in the United States does … Continue reading
An invention is not a thing, 9
The public policy idea around Bayh-Dole march-in would appear to be straightforward. It was so in the Kennedy patent policy: make the benefits of using an invention accessible to the public in three years from the date of a patent … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, instance, invention, practical application
Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 9
An invention is not a thing, 8
The question to ask is not what was intended by Bayh-Dole but rather what ought to be federal policy regarding inventions made in work for which those involved have gone out of their way to apply for federal funding. As … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, development, door of opportunity, invention
Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 8
An invention is not a thing, 7
Here we start to get at this problem of an invention not being a thing. The instance of an invention that might get one a patent is not necessarily the instance that one would build as a prototype. Furthermore, the … 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, 3: Some university policy definitions of invention
An invention is not a thing. An invention is a set of practices and objects. Invention is broader than just what’s patentable, as is the case with Bayh-Dole’s definition of invention, which includes stuff that’s not patentable and stuff that … Continue reading
Posted in Bayh-Dole
Tagged Bayh-Dole, definition, invention, stupid
Comments Off on An invention is not a thing, 3: Some university policy definitions of invention
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