Comments on: Should Universities Patent Their Research? Universities Say Yes. But should they?

By: Sakai License Weakens (Edu)Patent Protection at e-Literate

Sakai License Weakens (Edu)Patent Protection at e-Literate — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:08:46 +0000

[...] Now, in and of itself, this change obviously doesn’t mean that the universities that make up the Sakai and Kuali communities are suddenly supportive of edupatents. But let’s put this in some context. As Jim Farmer recently pointed out in a guest post here on e-Literate, research universities in the United States have become frequent patent aggressors. They have successfully lobbied Congress to shield them from the provisions in forthcoming patent reform legislation that is designed to reduce abuses of the patent system. They are spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every year asserting patents. In short, the research universities like the ones that make up Sakai and Kuali’s core constituency view the packaging and sale of their knowledge production as a central institutional strategy. [...]

By: Ken Udas

Ken Udas — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:30:25 +0000

Nice piece! I think that a lot of us are concerned that converting the results of publicly funded research projects into private information assets is so commonly and uncritically accepted. It is more disturbing to see how easily this attitude has become entrenched in university culture. I understand the logic, which is well outlined in Jim’s posting, and question its consistency with the posture that the Federal Government has taken since the Reagan/Thatcher, years relative to financial assistance for study. The government (federal and state-in the US and elsewhere) has justified reductions in student and public university support based on the rationale that the primary beneficiary of university education is the student, so the financial burden should be assigned to the student. This logic does not seem to apply to government investment in research. Perhaps more investment in higher education allowing for enhanced access through lower financial barriers to learners and more open technology transfer allowing for enhanced participation in the use of information assets through the reduction of intellectual property barriers would result in the innovation multiplier effect that we all seek.

By: Series Themes and CBPP | Terra Incognita - A Penn State World Campus Blog

Series Themes and CBPP | Terra Incognita - A Penn State World Campus Blog — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:23:28 +0000

[...] Given the current practice of converting information assets generated through public funding into private property, we might ask, “is CBPP is a viable model for sustained development?” This question, in the context of University Research Patents, is thoughtfully treated in a recent posting on e-Literate titled Should Universities Patent Their Research? Universities Say Yes. But should they?. In the posting by guest blogger James Farmer, rampant patenting for short-term gain is placed in opposition to the social good that can come from forgoing patents without a well articulate social-good rationale. There is a strong voice for socially responsible patenting (and non-patenting) and a recognition that removing information from the public commons can have a net negative impact on society. [...]

By: Warren Harrison

Warren Harrison — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:12:39 +0000

It is interesting that "technology transfer" and "innovation" is measured as numbers of patents issued, when the debate is about whether universities should be patenting their *faculties* inventions. Obviously the flip side of this debate is that if no one issues patents, no technology transfer occurs.Given those definitions, it is hard to argue with the effect of allowing universities to patent their inventions. However, if all university inventions were licensed using a variant of the common OSS licenses that have proven their worth in terms of technology transfer, we would likely see an exponential increase in the use of university-bred innovations. But this would require a definition of tech transfer that wouldn’t sit well with the patent crowd.It is also interesting to note that at least in the context of Federally funded research, universities seldom actually pay their faculty to do the research. Not only do Federal funds pay the faculty salaries, they also pay exorbitant amounts of indirect costs to cover the bloated administrative costs. This is quite a perversion of the original idea behind patents – to encourage inventors to take risks – universities risk nothing. The grants fund the faculty and armies of administrators whose sole purpose is to invent reasons why they should be on the payroll. Most private technology driven organizations can only have wet dreams over such a deal.

By: University Update - Georgetown University - Should Universities Patent Their Research? Universities Say Yes. But should they?

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:02:01 +0000

[...] West Virginia University Should Universities Patent Their Research? Universities Say Yes. But should they? » This Summary is from an article posted at e-Literate on Sunday, August 26, 2007 This is a guest blog post by Jim Farmer, Coordinator, Scholarly Systems Group at Georgetown University and editor at the eReSS project, University of Hull. At the December 2006 Sakai Conference in Atlanta many expressed the view that patents inhibit collaboration and innovation in teaching and learning. But that was not the view Summary Provided by Technorati.comView Original Article at e-Literate » 10 Most Recent News Articles About Georgetown University [...]