Nathan Myhrvold Now Capitalizing On Failed University Patent Intitiatives
from the privatizing-publicly-funded-research dept
We've discussed, in the past, the infamous Bayh-Dole Act, which tried to push universities to patent more of their research, with the idea that it would make research more commercializable. In fact, the unintended consequences were to significantly harm university research. Universities quickly set up "technology transfer" offices, with the idea of selling off patents for tons of money, but the vast majority of universities discovered that such technology transfer offices cost a lot more than they made, and so they were a drain on university resources (you know, which could have gone to basic research). On top of that, the new focus on patenting everything caused researchers to be much more afraid to share ideas and concepts with colleagues, greatly diminishing the value of research or the ability of researchers to explore other areas where colleagues might have already applied for patents, for fear of "infringing."However, it looks like Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures, which we've discussed at length, in the past, is looking to take advantage of this situation. With so many university technology transfer offices losing money, IV has been going around and signing deals with universities. Basically, IV gives those tech transfer offices some money upfront, allowing IV to effectively add each university's patent pool to its own portfolio that it uses to go around demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from companies to "protect" them against any future lawsuits.
Effectively, the end result is less actual research being done at universities, while some guys who don't actually build anything get rich. And, oh yeah, the companies that actually do stuff are poorer. Doesn't something seem highly suspect about this scenario?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bayh-dole, nathan myhrvold, patents, universities
Companies: intellectual ventures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Questions for any Corporate HR Rep
But what about recent graduates from an IV-sponsored University? I've had some pretty shady professors in the past. If the school entered into a patent assignment agreement with IV, I wouldn't put it past a shady Professor to scratch out a name and replace it with their own, even if it's just for notoriety reasons.
But to further compound this, from a Human Resources perspective, if you hire a recent graduate based on previous discoveries and/or work in the field of hire while at an IV-sponsored University, it would seem their academic research may present a new and very real risk of lawsuit to the company down the road. In light of this new legal threat, should the talent be considered a desirable hire?
This is a great example of mortgaging our children's future, but on a new level- essentially monetizing academic research.
Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions for any Corporate HR Rep
And the other side of that coin -
If a bright student had several good offers to consider, would the fact that one of them has such an agreement affect their decision ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, we paid for it...
So you paid for this research, got screwed out of the profit in selling the research, and are now paying for the fruits of the research...
It's just like when NASA sells patents instead of entering them into the public domain... You know, the public that paid for the research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps you would be so kind as to identify your sources for the above.
Re B-D, its original purpose was three-fold. First, it was to establish a uniform policy governing "inventions" arising during the course of a "funding agreement". Before its enactment there were as many policies as there were federal agencies. Second, it was to recognize a basic principle that "inventions" are best left in the hands of the original inventors. Third, it was to help remove one barrier that prevented some companies from entering into "funding agreements" in the first place.
That said, I do hold some concern that B-D may be having an unintended effect in the area of academic research being funded under "funding agreements".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Best for who? The original inventors? The public? Nathan Myhrvold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a thing called a "link". It's blue text. Click on it, and it takes you to another page. It's an amazing thing this world wide web...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My question still stands concerning the part of your article that I quoted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
morning coffee with a piece of BS from Mikey
and doesn't want to learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: morning coffee with a piece of BS from Mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: morning coffee with a piece of BS from Mikey
Actually, considering I've spent over a decade researching these areas, this is simply false.
First, I don't care about "scoops." The original stories for this post came from a few days ago in one case and a couple months ago in the other case. I do not rush stories out in order to get scoops. Scoops only matter if you think you can own a story. I don't. I like to make sure I have something interesting to say about it.
Secondly, as I've said from the very beginning, Techdirt is about me posting my opinion, and those who have more to add are free to change my mind in the comments. It's funny, though, how often those who disagree with me don't even try, but simply throw out insults.
MLS is an exception, though I usually find your statements unconvincing and ill-argued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: morning coffee with a piece of BS from Mikey
It is your constant castigation of IV that I find troubling. Perhaps some day in the future it may take the "dark path" and emulate what some now like to call "trolls", but there is nothing I have as yet read that even remotely suggests there is any basis to the portion of your article that I quoted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90 day USPTO disclosure requirement for filing
The university would be better off partnering with private industry that sees value in the discovery and could put up money for the patent. This seems to work better than a company whose modus operandi is to later use the dissertation/discovery to sue private industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dunno
If universities license patent rights, they share royalty income with their inventors, including students--usually between 1/3 and 1/2 of what comes in. Further, what they make beyond costs goes to support research--including (often) student research. Is this horrible? Having industry support research without dictating the work or controlling the outcomes?
Folks have to realize that most university research inventions, if placed in the public domain, mean nothing to the "public". The primary beneficiaries of doing so are big companies with established products and patent positions. An argument for the public domain for all university research inventions is an argument for helping big companies maintain the status quo, subsidized by government funds. Doesn't seem immediately like the best argument for innovation, though I can see how it might be attractive.
IV is picking stuff out of university back portfolio--these are patents sitting for five, ten years with no action. If industry had ever wanted these, they had their shot at them. At least aggregated by IV, these inventions have a single point of contact if they ever become relevant--and it's quite possible most won't. It appears that IV is *not* suing industry using the university patents it licenses in. And you know who the investors are in IV? Could it be that these include the leading tech companies? Yeah, that makes for an interesting twist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dunno
Not that interesting, when you know the full story:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060626/1011256.shtml
It's called bait and switch. Get investors based on one plan, then change it. Yeah, that makes for an interesting twist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]