Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: IPBizRickover and Bayh-Dole
By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.
Of course taxpayers should benefit directly from the fruits of the research they have funded.
This is not some harebrained, wacko leftist idea.
Back when the Bayh-Doyle Act governing federal funding of research was being debated, Adm. Hyman Rickover, the "father" of the U.S. nuclear fleet testified against the legislation.
He warned that giving private companies exclusive rights to taxpayer-funded inventions was forcing the public to pay twice: once for the research and once for higher prices made possible by the monopoly granted under a patent.
You can read more about this in Jennifer Washburn's excellent book, "University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education."
LBE wrote a comment:
Simpson's allusion to Rickover understates an important point: Congress did not adopt Rickover's position.
Of Bayh-Dole itself, one notes that the federal government retains rights in patents arising from federally-funded projects, and is free to exercise those rights. Furthermore, Congress can interfere with rights of non-government funded patents, and even the executive branch can do things, as Simpson recognized in his previous allusion to the airplane patent pool during World War I (although Simpson misstated the outcome).
An issue with the "paying for things twice" viewpoint is that the costs of "making the invention" (the research and patenting costs) are generally DWARFED by the development/marketing costs. If someone can't get return on THOSE costs, they won't invest. If they don't invest, there is no product to benefit the public. All the public gets is an academic paper.
Simpson's argument about "paying for things twice" is more relevant to whether the public should get free access to the information, an issue which is currently being debated in the copyright context.
Of Washburn:
Los Angeles Times Article Way Off Base on Stem Cell Issues
Thinking negatively about Bayh-Dole
***Separately, whenever someone goes out of their way to state that something is NOT a harebrained, wacko leftist idea, look out.
***Of copyright-->
John Conyers and the ?Fair Copyright in Research Works Act?
Full post as published by IPBiz on March 20, 2009 (boomark / email).

Did Bayh-Dole end Corporate R&D
LIVE FROM INDIANAPOLIS, ITS SUNDAY NIGHT 8:15 UPDATE
NYTimes: Universities, Patents, & Profits
The Decline of University Patenting and the End of the Bayh-Dole Effect







