AUTM on prizes and patent pools
In a post titled -- University patent managers versus developing countries--, James Love discusses positions of AUTM [Association of University Technology Managers] on prizes and patent pools.
On prizes themselves, see previous IPBiz post:
New Look for journal Science on 28 March 2008 about Prize4Life and InnoCentive.
[Love should try spellcheck.]
[IPBiz post 3700]
**separately, submitted to New Scientist:
The "giants of technology" mentioned in the article are in fact incrementalists of a mature industry who seek patents on things like methods of waiting in line for toilets on airplanes (see US 6,329,919 to IBM, now withdrawn), waiting in line in restaurants, or monitoring employee heartrates to enhance productivity (Microsoft). The giants pay academics to write articles supporting their position (a practice somewhat related to the ghostwriting issues involving VIOXX at JAMA): 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007) began: We are grateful to Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Intel, Micron Technology, Microsoft, and SAP for funding the research reported in this Article. Patent reform should not be directed to serving the interests of yesterday's thinkers, but rather should support the needs of people who will change the future.
***separately, see a thread on infoworld from last year -->
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/06/intellectual_di.html
On prizes themselves, see previous IPBiz post:
New Look for journal Science on 28 March 2008 about Prize4Life and InnoCentive.
[Love should try spellcheck.]
[IPBiz post 3700]
**separately, submitted to New Scientist:
The "giants of technology" mentioned in the article are in fact incrementalists of a mature industry who seek patents on things like methods of waiting in line for toilets on airplanes (see US 6,329,919 to IBM, now withdrawn), waiting in line in restaurants, or monitoring employee heartrates to enhance productivity (Microsoft). The giants pay academics to write articles supporting their position (a practice somewhat related to the ghostwriting issues involving VIOXX at JAMA): 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007) began: We are grateful to Apple Computer, Cisco Systems, Intel, Micron Technology, Microsoft, and SAP for funding the research reported in this Article. Patent reform should not be directed to serving the interests of yesterday's thinkers, but rather should support the needs of people who will change the future.
***separately, see a thread on infoworld from last year -->
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/06/intellectual_di.html
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home