Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

Thinking negatively about Bayh-Dole

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

An article in the New York Times titled When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder includes an allusion to a book about the Bayh-Dole Act:

Of course, there is precedent for scientific secrecy, notes Daniel S. Greenberg , author of ?Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of Campus Capitalism? (University of Chicago Press, 2007). When James Watson and Francis Crick were homing in on DNA?s double-helix structure in the 1950s, they zealously guarded their work from prying eyes until they could publish their findings, to be certain that they would get the credit for making the discovery.

?They didn?t try to patent it,? Mr. Greenberg notes, ?but somebody doing the same work today would certainly take a crack at patenting the double helix.?

In fact, it was the life sciences ? in particular, biotechnology ? that started universities down the slippery commercial slope in the first place. Even before the Bayh-Dole Act, pharmaceutical companies were eagerly trolling campuses, looking for projects to finance. After the law was passed, they stepped up their efforts, but now with renewed zeal for keeping potential trade secrets from competitors.

There is also mention of Jennifer Washburn, discussed earlier on IPBiz:

?Bayh-Dole tore down the taboos that existed against universities engaging in overtly commercial activity. Universities really thought that they were going to make it rich,? said Jennifer Washburn, author of ?University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education? (Basic Books, 2005). ?Each school was convinced that if they came up with that one blockbuster invention, they could solve all their financial problems.?

Ms. Washburn says that was ?extremely wrong-headed.? Initially reacting to the law by slapping patents on every possible innovation, universities quickly discovered that patents were an expensive proposition.

The NYT article identified a (perceived) problem -->

Part of the problem has been a lingering misunderstanding about where the value lies in innovation. Patenting a new basic science technique, or platform technology, puts it out of the reach of graduate students who might have made tremendous progress using it.

***Separately,

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a piece on Mary Hallock-Greenewalt, mentioning Nourathar and an invention to a machine that synchronized colored lights to recordings and a 1920 patent for a nonlinear variety of rheostat, a type of dimmer switch

Full post as published by IPBiz on September 07, 2008 (boomark / email).