University Of Copenhagen Giving Away Patents For Free... If You Have A Credible Plan
from the tech-transfer dept
We've talked in the past about the whole concept of tech transfer offices at universities. This was an idea that became popular a couple decades back, that universities, with all their researchers, could create a profit center by licensing or selling the patents that come from university research. The reality is that this has been a dismal failure. Most universities (like many patent holders who aren't actually building products in the marketplace) totally and completely overvalue their patents, making it completely uneconomical for anyone to license the patents. In the end, this has made the vast majority of tech transfer offices cost centers rather than profit centers. They hired lots of people, which is expensive, and they haven't seen much of a return on it.Even worse, this focus on locking up knowledge and research from universities has been disastrous on actual advancement and the spreading of knowledge, which many of these universities claim is a key goal. Professors are told not to share results or data or plans with professors at other universities, for fear of "losing out" on a patent. The whole academic culture of sharing and building on each others' knowledge is held back tremendously. It's a huge shame.
Thankfully, a few universities are realizing this and are starting to push back. Last year, we noted that the University of Glasgow was freeing up most of its "intellectual property," for anyone who could use it. And, now, hrusha alerts us to the news that the University of Copenhagen (known as KU) is offering free licenses to anyone who can present a "credible" plan for bringing a product to market within 3 years.
It's not a totally open and free system, but it's certainly better than most. The encouragement on commercialization will hopefully help get the practical implications of the research out into the marketplace quickly. I'm not so sure how they determine what is and what is not a "credible plan," so hopefully they err on the side of granting such licenses whenever possible. Hopefully more and more universities will begin to realize that locking up research and expecting to get paid for it is a dead end road that goes against the core principles of most institutes of higher learning.
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: copenhagen, free, ideas, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are about 8 million patents now. Where are all the products from these pieces of paper? Only about 5% of patents actually have any impact. It is not because these are the most brilliant ideas, it is because someone had the drive to push them forward.
In many cases the most brilliant ideas are left to rot because it will cost to much short term to re-tool, or compete in the same arena as an existing product.
All in all the probability of having a successful transfer office is close to nil.
So your question is a moot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You asked that question in a very sneaky way, double negative and all, and here is my answer.
It would hurt the position that patents produce innovation.
First they innovation come before the patent.
Second the U of C is becoming a Venture Capital firm with this move. They are looking for the implementation, and the business support structure to carry it through, not the IP. In our current society, the IP is the protection against the IP extortionist, also known as patent trolls, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people believe that to win the race they need to exclude all others runners from the race, but they will never win against others that had to face other runners in the real life.
This also reminds me of a joke about a bear:
Quote:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you should ask Bono.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why don't you ask Samsung and Apple how many smartphones they want the competition making?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question to ask
Would you rather 2 or 3 people used the work and paid a few thousand in licencing fees - or would you rather 1000 people used it and broadcast your name across the world?
All a University needs is attribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Core Values of Instutes of Higher learning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Core Values of Instutes of Higher learning
It is not true of those institutions (Such as Oxford and Cambridge in the UK) where the academic staff are still the sovereign body - even though their executives would like it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth be known, however, the vast majority of such university tech transfer programs are not profit centers if one defines profit as income minus expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They didn't say which market....
Anyways, I'm totally for doing the adult thing to do when people abuse the patent system so much. "If you can't play nicely, I'm taking it away." I'm all for just completely removeing patents and letting the economy flurish (Ex: Apple trying to remove competitors by injunction for patents-that-should-not-be-patents). But a flurishing economy is kinda chaotic and large companies detest that sort thing, so there's no way your getting past their pay wall(politicians). So, unlike many others who just spout off the equivalent of "BURN THIS MOTHA TO THE GROUND!", here are some realistic overhauls of the patent system.
Replace all the stupid rights you get with patents and make it a nontransferable inventor's credit right. That way for some arbitrary number of years, lets say 10, the maker of the product must give credit to the inventors (or brand name selected and owned by patenter) of the patents used in the product. If there 5 or less, it must be placed clearly and prominently on the product packaging, otherwise all credits can be placed with the products documentation. The (new)patent holders may give permission to forgo the required printed credit, usually for a fee (see they can still make money!).
So this way, technology can't be held up by assholes, companies have to find another way to sue or compete, there is still motivation for releaseing your patentable knowledge instead of making it a trade secret.
Now really think about that, do you think a pharmacutical company wants to have "INVENTED BY (competitor)" on it? Another example would be a shiny SONY tv box with USING SAMSUNG TECHNOLOGY plastered up front on the box. So of course they would try to pay to not include that right on the box. Even if they don't, everyone will know the company that invented it, with gives the company name/brand credit. There's alot of market control that can be gained from it, without having to hold up anything.
Hell, I'd be happy if there was simply a clause in patents that said you lose patent rights without a viable business plan and actually produce a product within 3 years, which the patent expires 2 years after product release. That way, if you don't know wtf you would use it for, you wouldn't go for a patent until you do know what to do, which allows for another person who comes up with the same damn thing and DOES know what to do with it, to do so.
TL;DR, The patent system is made where it CAN work, but it CAN also be ruined by a bunch of assholes (companies). Play nice or lose it, it is hurting the economy more than helping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and education
The article does ignore the really serious negative consequences of this, though - since there is the appearance of great wealth from "here and now, practical" applications, it degrades the value of pure research.
So, the wisdom of the past: "a dollar for now, a dollar for the future" becomes "get the money, NOW!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Allegedly, the USPTO was supposed to only grant patents on designs if there is a plan to implement them (ie: if you have a working model).
Yet that turned out to be a complete failure. The majority of patents never even make it to product. It's no surprise that this is a failure too. It's a success for big government established monopolistic corporations, it's a failure for society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Core Values of Instutes of Higher learning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Core Values of Instutes of Higher learning
And while at it, those socialist jerks have also realized how to make do with a LOT of other social services that we can only dream of here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay the professors and then make the work available
Maybe everyone here can brainstorm about alternative fundraising systems that support research and researchers while at the same time making the information widely available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]