Lack of inventor mobility bad

[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]

Excessive limitations on university inventor mobility are troubling for many reasons. Because university inventors typically work on early-stage research, they gain an intimate understanding of their inventions that is essential to later development of the technology.9 Inventor involvement in developing new technology is often critical to firm success.10 For example, entities that have the benefit of inventor participation are far more likely to succeed in commercializing inventions, as they can draw upon the inventor's particularized knowledge. 11 Restricting inventor movement may impede application of the valuable tacit knowledge inventors have gained about their embryonic inventions, hindering the exchange of information necessary for dissemination of technology and commercialization.12 In addition, community norms and philosophical underpinnings about whether inventors should be allowed to use their inventions can conflict with legal doctrine. 13 The chasm between

norms, beliefs, and the law suggests a reason why inventors engage in activity that sometimes appears capable of justification but is in fact proscribed.14

Unreasonably denying departing inventors the ability to continue working on their creations may be at odds with the legislative, financial, and reputational foundations of universities to support the dissemination of knowledge for public benefit. For example, the Bayh­ Dole Act (the Act) allows universities to retain ownership rights in patents, seeking to minimize the likelihood that inventions will languish on the shelves of university laboratories.15Thus, a primary aim of the Act is to encourage universities to develop their technology in conjunction with industry. 16 Unduly burdening inventor involvement in development could contradict these objectives.

Further, universities' dependence on public funding and preferential treatment for tax purposes raises the question of what the role of the university should be in encouraging technological development in the public interest.17 Although the influence of increased private funding has sometimes blurred the boundaries between academia and industry, academic institutions continue to promote their missions of providing service to the public and disseminating knowledge to obtain reputational and• philanthropic benefits. 18 Imposing undue limitations on departing inventors seems contrary to these organizing principles.