E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Federal Circuit Hears Oral Argument in AMP v. USPTO Remand | Main | USPTO Issues Final Rule for Preissuance Submissions »

July 24, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e2017616af76c6970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Grants for Funding University Technology Transfer Introduced in Congress:

Comments

What do you think of the Michael Chrichton (RIP) call in his penultimate novel "Next" for repeal of Bahy-Dole?
For details see:
http://koshergoldfish.blogspot.com/2012_06_01_archive.html

sorry, Bayh

Dear Arthur:

I am not a fan of the late Dr. Crichton, who (in)famously wrote an Op Ed piece in the NY Times with a scenario of a gene patent owner ringing your doorbell and presenting you with a bill for using a gene located in your liver. All just to promote his book, Next.

Jon Soderstrom of Yale is better informed than I on the effects of Bayh-Dole, but let me say that prior to passage of that act big companies, foreign and domestic, could steal technology developed by universities, whereas after passage they needed to license the resulting patents. I think repealing Bayh-Dole would be even dumber than rendering genes patent ineligible.

Thanks for the comment.

In "Next" Crichton was concerned with a plethora of hot button issues in the genetic engineering field. His point 5 in his "Author's Note" in "Next" was the repeal of Bayh-Dole. It is clear that he was concerned about the result in the Moore case. Do you agree with the holding in that case? While "Next" is a little too lurid for my taste, it could serve as a bioethics textbook. I recommend reading it. You can buy a good used copy for under $5 on Amazon.

Though it's perhaps understandable that these bills might be somewhat untouchable during an election year -- particularly on the heels of the patent reform bill -- I honestly can't see how any thoughtful citizen could find it controversial to support and promote American innovation. This proposed legislation seems extremely tame, compared to the AIA.
http://www.aminn.org/patent-legislation

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31