Law review article questions CIRM's patent policy

From 43 Hous. L. Rev. 1373 (2007):

At issue was the promise to voters that by passing Proposition 71 in 2004 and setting up the CIRM, the public would reap a healthy financial return on their $ 3
billion investment. n431 A year later, and after they received voter approval,
however, project leaders were backpedaling, saying that the state should not try to reap a financial return via licensing royalties, but rather should be
content to allow the university recipients of the research funds to reap that
return instead. n432 This questionable (and questionably objective) result was
then enacted by the Board of the CIRM as an "interim policy" in December
2005. n433

Footnote 433 includes the text: Again, the Board consists largely of officials from
California universities and research institutions who have a clear interest in
allowing their own institutions to reap the financial rewards of IP licensing
rather than sharing them with the cash-strapped California taxpayers.