Journal publication the opposite of patents??
Within a post titled Office for Technology Commercialization supports Congress’ patent reform bill , one finds the urban legend:
“A professor’s job is to do research, discover and publish — the opposite of the goal with patents, where you’re looking for monopolies and keeping things secret for a while.” [attributed to David Poticha, senior licensing manager at the University of Colorado Denver’s Anschutz Medical Campus Technology Transfer Office by author TARA BANNOW ]
Compare to the bottom line in 8 JMRIPL 80:
The story of the invention of the transistor illustrates a case in which journal
publication and patenting worked hand-in-hand. Society promptly got the benefits of
the knowledge of the inventors, which impacted upon a number of areas.79 These
areas were readily developed by other researchers and by patent licensees.
Elsewhere in the article by Bannow:
Universities, which tend to be more strapped for cash than major corporations, have a difficult time defending themselves in court against patent infringement accusations, said Stephen Heinig, lead science policy analyst of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC, along with five other higher education associations, wrote a letter to Congress in March supporting the reform.
A patent lawsuit currently costs about $5 million, Hines said.
He said it’s unclear whether the bill will alleviate the biggest roadblock to patenting university ideas: the “publish or perish” motto that convinces faculty members to write papers rather than file patents on their discoveries.
In academic circles, publishing continues to be the main avenue to tenure, Poticha said.
“You don’t go to major meetings and conventions and have people put up patent citations on the PowerPoint,” he said. “It’s always journal articles.”
But if the paper comes before the patent, third parties have the opportunity to snatch the idea with a patent before the actual investigator can.
The bill would put the United States in line with the rest of the world by moving to a “first to file” system in which the invention’s creator gets priority through the creation of a grace period.
The article suggests universities are worried about being patent infringement defendants. Most big cases (eg, Ariad v. Lilly; URochester v. Searle) have the university in the role of plaintiff. What was Bannow thinking?
IPBiz notes that S.515 has nothing to do with the concept expressed in the sentence: He said it’s unclear whether the bill will alleviate the biggest roadblock to patenting university ideas: the “publish or perish” motto that convinces faculty members to write papers rather than file patents on their discoveries. Obviously, the professors at MIT and Harvard related to the Ariad case were NOT "convinced" to write papers rather than file patents on their discoveries. Bannow should read
Missing the point on Bayh-Dole .
“A professor’s job is to do research, discover and publish — the opposite of the goal with patents, where you’re looking for monopolies and keeping things secret for a while.” [attributed to David Poticha, senior licensing manager at the University of Colorado Denver’s Anschutz Medical Campus Technology Transfer Office by author TARA BANNOW ]
Compare to the bottom line in 8 JMRIPL 80:
The story of the invention of the transistor illustrates a case in which journal
publication and patenting worked hand-in-hand. Society promptly got the benefits of
the knowledge of the inventors, which impacted upon a number of areas.79 These
areas were readily developed by other researchers and by patent licensees.
Elsewhere in the article by Bannow:
Universities, which tend to be more strapped for cash than major corporations, have a difficult time defending themselves in court against patent infringement accusations, said Stephen Heinig, lead science policy analyst of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC, along with five other higher education associations, wrote a letter to Congress in March supporting the reform.
A patent lawsuit currently costs about $5 million, Hines said.
He said it’s unclear whether the bill will alleviate the biggest roadblock to patenting university ideas: the “publish or perish” motto that convinces faculty members to write papers rather than file patents on their discoveries.
In academic circles, publishing continues to be the main avenue to tenure, Poticha said.
“You don’t go to major meetings and conventions and have people put up patent citations on the PowerPoint,” he said. “It’s always journal articles.”
But if the paper comes before the patent, third parties have the opportunity to snatch the idea with a patent before the actual investigator can.
The bill would put the United States in line with the rest of the world by moving to a “first to file” system in which the invention’s creator gets priority through the creation of a grace period.
The article suggests universities are worried about being patent infringement defendants. Most big cases (eg, Ariad v. Lilly; URochester v. Searle) have the university in the role of plaintiff. What was Bannow thinking?
IPBiz notes that S.515 has nothing to do with the concept expressed in the sentence: He said it’s unclear whether the bill will alleviate the biggest roadblock to patenting university ideas: the “publish or perish” motto that convinces faculty members to write papers rather than file patents on their discoveries. Obviously, the professors at MIT and Harvard related to the Ariad case were NOT "convinced" to write papers rather than file patents on their discoveries. Bannow should read
Missing the point on Bayh-Dole .
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home