Search the archive.

[Lisa & Andrew, “How do patent incentives affect university researchers?,” International Review of Law and Economics Volume 61, Elsevier, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818819302522?via%3Dihub, 7-16-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]

Assigning patents to universities also has an important legal side: who is entitled to ownership of intellectual property? Even though that has not been the focus of this study, as we addressed the individual and university-level, our findings imply that the effect of legislation depends on the execution at university level. On the surface, the difference between university ownership of intellectual property, like in the Bayh-Dole act in the US and similar legislation all over Europe, and inventor ownership by the ‘professor's privilege’ in Sweden (and in the past in Germany, Finland, Norway, and Denmark), seems to be very important. Yet, studies have mixed judgments regarding the effect of these different regimes (; ): some argue that university ownership is more effective in making inventions available for the public (), but most studies find that both systems are at least similarly effective in terms of the number of patents (; ) or that replacing the inventor-ownership with university-ownership even leads to a decrease in patenting and start-up rates (e.g., ; ; ). Short- and long-term effects of such legislation changes may be different, but in the end, the effects may be smaller than predicted as  show in their comparison of Sweden and the US. Our study points at the need to understand the university- and individual-level aspects that play a role. Importantly, in the end in both systems, university managers, technology transfer offices and individual academic inventors jointly impact eventual outcomes in terms of patents and university-based start-ups (see ).

[Brenda M. "Preserving the Fruits of Labor: Impediments to University Inventor Mobility," Tennessee Law Review 89, no. 1 (Fall 2021): 1-66 heinonline gdi-tm]

Problematic Proposals to Vest Ownership in Inventors

Universities play a critical role in the generation and dissemination of knowledge (; ). Scientific research conducted at universities and knowledge institutes serves as an important input for industrial innovation (; ), and functions as a map for applied research (). A large part of scientific knowledge is tacit, which makes it difficult to be freely transferred across organizations (). Therefore, increasingly academic researchers are involved in the “translation” of basic science, through participating in applied research projects () or coming up with research findings that are of high practical relevance and foster innovation (e.g., ). Both activities may result in the generation of academic patents (referring to patents with at least one university inventor).

To strengthen university-industry links, several initiatives have been taken to spur local economic development based on university research. For instance, science parks have been located nearby research university campuses (), business incubators and public seed capital funds have been established (; ), and bridging institutions are formed that are supposed to link universities to industrial innovation (; ). At the country level, in particular, the passage of the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, also known as the ‘Bayh-Dole Act’– providing universities the right to patent and commercialize scientific breakthroughs accomplished with federal funding – has marked an important milestone in the history of university technology transfer, by simplifying and removing many restrictions in the transfer process (; ). Other countries have implemented similar legislation, but with different results (). For instance, in Germany, the ‘professor's privilege’ was abolished, granting the university instead of the inventor the ownership over inventions. This did not lead to an increase in university patents overall, but it did increase university-owned patents ().

[John E., III, 2013 Volume 38, Journal Technology Transfer, “Redeploying Bayh-Dole: beyond Merely doing good to optimizing the potential in results of taxpayer-funded research”, Springer - DOI 10.1007/s10961-011-9231-x, accessed on 7-16-2024, GDI-ALG]

Many universities are centers of research excellence and innovative thinking. They enhance knowledge, understanding, and basic conceptions that can advance economic growth and human welfare. For instance, university innovations have been and can continue to lead to new products, services, approaches and experiences that can help stimulate economic growth and corresponding potential for jobs, taxes, wealth, and other community benefits (Litan and Cook-Deegan 2011; Tyler 2009; Schramm 2006; Tornatzky 2002; Good 2004; Thursby and Thursby 2004). The United States government clearly values that role. It annually directs tens of billions of dollars to such universities for their research efforts. These funds and the research that they support serve a ‘‘critical national need’’ that is ‘‘vital to the nation’s welfare and security’’ because of the potential contributions to our nation’s economic growth and well-being, which is increasingly being viewed as a composite of national security (Schacht 2010b; President’s Council of Advisors 2008; Crow 2008).

[Alice, “Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship”, European Economic Review, 123, Elsevier, Accessed 7/16, GDI-IM] 

The literature on academic entrepreneurship has mainly focused on how TTOs can foster academic entrepreneurship (Clarysse et al., 2005; Wright, 2007). Although there is scarce evidence of the direct impact of TTOs on the creation of spin-offs, TTOs have increased the entrepreneurial intent of academics (Meyer, 2003). Similarly, Bercovitz and Feld- man (2008) found that academics who were familiar with TTO activities were more likely to get involved in entrepreneurial activities as they learned the business norms and skills that are needed to be successful in commercializing research due to the supportive environment that TTOs were able to create. In fact, TTOs usually organize pre-seed capital to be invested in potential spin-offs (Clarysse and Bruneel, 2007). Academics, who want to start a new business, therefore have access to capital. In addition, they offer incubation services, which make it possible for academics to set up their new business stay- ing on their campus. They also offer a variety of advice and coaching activities towards the academics and help in finding experienced managers from the industry to help support the new firm (Clarysse et al., 2011).

[Alice, “Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship”, European Economic Review, 123, Elsevier, Accessed 7/16, GDI-IM] 

In turn, the rationale behind starting a new business is strongly related to the context (Audretsch et al., 2015; Casson, 2005; Clarysse et al., 2005). In a more traditional context, where academic spinoffs are generated to exploitation a business opportunity, a successful commercialization strategy may be minimizing the cost of placing on the market the company’s innovation. It is thus a task of the spinning out university to ensure the best environment for the diffusion of the innovation. This has led to the creation of the Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs henceforth), with the specific aim of reducing costs associated with the process of innovation diffusion (Audretsch et al., 2014; Siegel et al., 2003). In a context instead, where academic spinoffs constitute a compensatory self-employment opportunity when academic inventors cannot find a stable position within the academia, TTOS play a more crucial role by providing individuals competencies, informa- tion, and in general resources they lack (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008; Clarysse et al., 2011). Without TTOs’ supporting and coaching activities necessity academic spinoffs can hardly survive. Then, in the first case, TTOs are specifically arranged to stimulate invention disclosures among the researchers, to protect inventions from copying and assistance to researchers in the contractual part of their research. In the second case, they offer incubation services, which make it possible for aca- demics to set up their new business staying on their campus, as well as a variety of advice and coaching activities towards the academics and help in finding experienced managers from the industry to help support the new firm.

[Alice, “Engagement of academics in university technology transfer: Opportunity and necessity academic entrepreneurship”, European Economic Review, Vol. 123, Elsevier, Accessed 7/17, GDI-IM] 

University spinoffs are a well-accepted vehicle for the dissemination and commercialization of new knowledge and a wide range of policies have been recommended and implemented to encourage their formation in hopes of spurring inno- vation and local economic development (Shane, 2004). Indeed, according to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneur- ship, they result fundamental for the development of the regions where they are located (Acs et al., 2013).

[Lisa & Andrew, “How do patent incentives affect university researchers?,” International Review of Law and Economics Volume 61, Elsevier, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818819302522?via%3Dihub, 7-16-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]

*TTO = technology transfer office

Finally, studies have looked into how patent characteristics influence university-ownership of these patents. An obvious argument is that patents that are the result of company-funded research are more likely to be owned by companies (). Nevertheless, there is no clear effect of such collaboration on the assignment of the patent ownership, except for the case of university spin-off firms and other forms of entrepreneurial collaboration (; ; ). Importantly, some studies have found that the (expected) short-term value of patents is related to the tendency to file patents outside the university (; ; ), while more basic or fundamental patents, with later forward cites are more likely to be assigned to universities (; ; ). Overall, patent characteristics may influence the decision-making of individuals, companies, and universities.

[Elco, Jingshu Du, Shandong University, Jannigje Gerdien Kers, Wageningen University and Research, Technovation Volume 107, ScienceDirect, “When do academics patent outside their university? An in-depth case study?,” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221000687?via%3Dihub, 7-17-24, GDI – Tom Huynh]

*TTOs – technology transfer office

[Brenda M. "Preserving the Fruits of Labor: Impediments to University Inventor Mobility," Tennessee Law Review 89, no. 1 (Fall 2021): 1-66 heinonline gdi-tm]

The employer-university typically has a superior ownership interest in inventors' intellectual property and other invention­ related materials by virtue of employment and other agreements.163 The Bayh-Dole Act allows patents resulting from federally-funded research to be assigned to universities. 164 Some faculty inventors, however, circumvent university procedures requiring coordination with the university's technology transfer office (TTO) and apply for patents on their own.165 One study found that over 42% of university inventors who obtained patents bypassed their university's TTO at least once.166 Other university inventors have launched firms without obtaining university licenses, or they have entered into financially beneficial relationships with firms aligned with their research, effectively creating a "gray market" for inventions.167

Yet, one issue that prevents to develop a clear picture of academic patenting is that many patents produced by academics are not patented under the name of a university (; ; ; ) and the institutional affiliation of inventors is often not accurately acknowledged (). As a result, it is estimated that 60–80% of academic patents are not university-owned patents (i.e., patents that are owned or co-owned by a university) (, ). Such non-university-owned patents that are based on university inventions are commonly referred to as university-invented patents (cf. ; ). Thus, even patents that acknowledge only a commercial institution might actually have an academic origin.

A lot of those negative positions are premised on increasing patents - and to some degree, the university ownership aff internal links are premised on the idea that individual researchers would also get more patents.

Those other files include:

(Jason, 1-30-23, The Washington Post, “What if the crisis of democracy is (mostly) in our heads?”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/democratic-more-resilient-than-expected/)

In “Subjective and Objective Measures of Democratic Backsliding,” the political scientists Andrew Little of the University of California at Berkeley and Anne Meng of the University of Virginia find that the post-Cold War expansion of democracy in nations around the world has, on average, held. “Recent studies that find evidence of global backsliding,” they observe, “rely heavily if not entirely on subjective indicators” — such as asking experts to rate, based on their own judgment, the extent to which an election was “free and fair.”

(Stephen M., January 22nd, 2024, Foreign Policy, “Another Trump Presidency Won’t Much Change U.S. Foreign Policy”, https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/22/another-trump-presidency-wont-much-change-u-s-foreign-policy)

But if we turn to foreign policy, the differences are not so stark. Although many people now fear that a second Trump term would have dramatic effects on U.S. foreign policy, I suspect the differences will be less significant than you might think. Trump will be erratic, mercurial, boorish, and confrontational—especially toward America’s NATO allies—just as he was during his first term. But in other respects, a second Trump term may not be that different from what Biden would do should he win another four years in office. To see this, consider how each man is likely to deal with what are arguably the three most important items on today’s foreign-policy agenda: Ukraine, China, and the Middle East.

With that out of the way, let’s look whether the science supports what’s being said.

First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.

(David, March 5, 2024, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, “David Mills: Only one kind of swing voter makes sense this election”, https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/david-mills/2024/03/05/biden-trump-2024-swing-voters/stories/202403050091)

I may well be missing something, but try as I might, I can’t get into the head of someone who genuinely wavers between Trump and Biden. I can’t see being a swing voter in this election. The differences are too stark. That’s like wavering between Ukraine and Russia, or good health and cancer, beer and sewage, the Steelers and the Cowboys. Opinions will differ on which is which, but the difference is going to feel that great.

(Biotechnology Innovation Organization, 1-18-2024, "U.S. voters favor strong IP protection”, )

U.S. voters favor strong international IP protection, poll finds

(Kevin, 3-4-2024, “Here’s why I’m still bullish on Biden,” https://jabberwocking.com/heres-why-im-still-bullish-on-biden/)

I remain unmoved by the liberal panic over Joe Biden's weak poll numbers. However, I keep getting asked why, so here it is:

Sarah, 6-12-2024, Hill, "Trump holds 2-in-3 chance of winning in new election forecast," https://thehill.com/elections/4717882-trump-holds-2-in-3-chance-of-winning-in-new-election-forecast/Former President Trump has a 2-3 chance of winning the White House in November, according to The Economist’s election forecast model launched Wednesday.

The model predicts Trump has a 66-100 chance of winning, while President Biden has a 33-100 chance of winning.