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

« BIO Urges Rehearing En Banc in Fresenius v. Baxter Int'l. | Main | A Reply to the New England Journal of Medicine »

September 10, 2013

Comments

Don,

Here's the link to Joe Allen's reply to this malarkey being spewed by Markel regarding Bayh-Dole: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/10/a-reply-to-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/id=45085/ . Unlike Markel, Joe speaks from experience (supported by facts) when it comes to the impact and value of Bayh-Dole. Markel may be the "George E. Wantz Distinguished Professor of the History of Medicine, and Director for the Center for the History of Medicine" at University of Michigan, but he's undeserving of having any expertise regarding Bayh-Dole.

I wouldn't mind it so much if Dr. Markel actually shared some solid points to back up his call for recalibrating the Bayh-Dole act.

But after reading his article I was left with the distinct impression that the man simply has no clue as to what he is talking about. Mind you, he might. He might know a lot. But that is not what is coming across when I read his article.

He makes some pretty broad accusations, but presents no backing or support at all.

Such diatribes leave me rather disappointed. Evidently he feels strongly about the topic, but without more, I simply cannot understand why, and I am not compelled in the least that his cause is just. Change 'just because' has never sat well with me, especially when you are changing from something with such a DOCUMENTED history of success, and based on what amounts to being only feelings that some nebulous better path exists.

Perhaps he will respond with something.

Perhaps not.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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