panel 3b pirated goods, national ipr regimes, and competition policy concerns
TRANSCRIPT
PANEL 3B
Pirated Goods, National IPR Regimes, and Competition Policy
Concerns
Supporting University Spin-Offs via IPR policies: from Ideas to Profits
Patrick Farrant
KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY FORUM VIFORUM VI
Why ideas matter…
=?
Ideas are different
“If you have an apple and I have an apple
and we exchange apples, then you and I
will still have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have an idea
and we exchange these ideas, then each
of us will have two ideas.”
George Bernard Shaw
What is Intellectual Property?
“The rights of the creator in the product of his
or her creative intellect. These rights
confer on the creator (or the owner) the
exclusive right to use that product or to
permit someone else to use it.”
…Intellectual Property protects ideas
IP Assets
• Registered Rights– patents– trade marks– registered designs– domain names
• Unregistered Rights– trade marks– know how/confidential information– design right– database rights– copyright
Why have IP?
• Incentive function: rewards inventiveness (monopoly
rights are granted)
• Transactional function: allow intangibles to be
exchanged
• Disclosure function: an instrument for the dissemination
of knowledge (for the public good)
• Signalling function: indication of innovation so as to
enable capital to be raised
• Inherent trade off between the rights and the
consequences of the monopoly: it is a balance
• But not without controversy:– Ethics, freedom to research, TRIPS issues
Science
LawBusiness
IP
IP in context
The output of a synergistic interaction…
Increasing importance of IP
“In today's knowledge economy , IP has never been
more important for securing … prosperity... It is
estimated that 70 per cent of a typical company’s
value lies in its intangible assets…and the number
of patent applications have more than doubled at
the EPO in the last ten years”
The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, 2006
Universities as engine rooms
• Universities and research institutes:– carry out basic research– educate– AND are engine rooms for great technology
• DNA sequencing, computer memory, web search
all came from universities
• Challenge: how to turn great technology into
successful business
• Stanford spin-outs include Google and Sun
Microsystems!
UK University Spin-outs
590 UK university spin-outs, representing 12% of UK venture capital finance
What if you get it wrong?
• DNA structure, DNA sequencing, mAb production
came from UK universities…but the economic
benefits mainly generated in the US
• Why: – Failure to recognise the potential?– Philanthropy?– No entrepreneurial culture?– No IP policy?
University Technology Transfer Offices
Models for technology transfer
• You will hear about Cambridge and Imperial
• Models typically fall into:– Publicly, or separately owned company– Joint venture – Wholly owned company– Department within a University– Team within a Department
• Whatever the model, investment experience is
critical - Library House analysis show a gain of
over 50% in technology transfer efficiency if staff
have investment experience
Investment experience uplift
Case Study: Babraham Institute
• Injection of £1 million investment from Avlar BioVentures
Fund II LLP to form and fund new early-stage life sciences
companies associated with the Babraham Research Campus
• 10-year pipeline agreement with the Babraham Institute
giving it the right to form companies around intellectual
property created at the Institute
• Around 330 staff work at the Institute Babraham is ranked
#4 in the UK by citation in its areas of research specialism
• 41 companies have been associated with the Babraham
Research Campus since 1998 and these companies have
raised in excess of £150m investment.
Making it happen: a lawyers view
• Bring together:– The ideas (IP)– The people (founder scientists and managers)– The opportunity (the business plan)– The capital (the investors)
• Put it all into a vehicle: the spin-out company
• Documents:– IP assignment, tax structuring, employment
contracts, shareholders agreement, share options,….
IP ownership: a key issue
• NO ONE will invest (or licence-in) unless:– There is IP– It is good IP (broad scope)– Clarity as to who owns the IP– Can be distinguished from competitors IP
• Farrant’s law based on involvement in 20 plus
spin-outs over past 5 or so years!
• Predicted that to get a new drug onto the market in
2010 will require $2 billion investment; justifying
that investment requires certainty over the IP
monopoly, so to ensure a proper return
To get from ideas to profit you need
• Strong IP system (national)
• Strong IP policies (university)
• Culture of commercialisation
• Experienced technology transfer professionals
• Clear IP ownership
….and of course a world beating idea!
Thank you
Taylor Vinters
Merlin Place
Milton Road
Cambridge
CB4 0DP
+44 1223 225181
21
Cambridge Enterprise Limited
An overview
April 2007
www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk
22
University of Cambridge
University established in 1209
Students: 16,500 (11,600 u/c, 5,000 p/c)
20% from overseas representing 100 countries
Over 100 departments, faculties and schools
World Class Ranking (Shanghai 2005)
1. Harvard
2. Cambridge
3. Stanford
4. Berkeley
5. MIT
6. Caltech
7. Columbia
8. Princeton
9. Chicago
10.Oxford
23
Data for 2005/6
University research funding
Total £295.5 million
24
The Cambridge Phenomenon
• University people and ideas are at the core of many new technology ventures
• Over 1,000 innovation based companies– >500 in IT and >200 in the Life Sciences, the most rapidly expanding
sectors– Nicknamed ‘Silicon Fen’– 8% of all European venture capital invested in Cambridge
(Library House: first half of 2004)
• University organisations have helped develop the infrastructure of the ‘cluster’– Trinity College: Cambridge Science Park– St. John’s Innovation Centre– Peterhouse Technology Park
25
Teaching and researchIntellectual
property
RSD Partnership Group
Cambridge Enterprise
Large companies
SMEs
Embedded research labs and Licensing
research communities Consultancy
Support for technology transfer
26
Existing business
Form a business
Inventions
Software
Materials
Patenting
&
Marketing
Commercial Agreements
3 months
DueDiligence
&
Revenue Distribution
6 – 24 months
6 months – 20 years
Baseline - Selected Technology Transfer Metrics for 2005/6
152 annual disclosures 800 cases under mgmt
59 new patent applications350 patent familiesUnder mgmt
61 agreements, (4 spinouts)243 agreements under mgmt (54 spinouts
£3.3 million
27
Baseline
• For fiscal year 05/06:– 61 commercialisation contracts closed with new and
existing companies to commercialise University of Cambridge innovations.
– £6.2 million was generated in consultancy and technology transfer
– £5.3 million was distributed to stakeholders (academics and departments).
– £1.6 million in seed fund realisations (most of which is available for reinvestment per evergreen structure)
– 25 FTEs and costs of operations/personnel covered by net revenues, grants and HEIF funding
28
Baseline - assets under management
• Three overlapping portfolios– Licensing contracts and corresponding
revenue streams (250+)– Consultancy contracts with corresponding
revenue streams (150+)– Equity holdings obtained in consideration of
license, equity investment or non-financial support (60+)
29
Recent relevant policy and organisational milestones
Intellectual Property – as of December 2005• The University has the initial right to apply for patents arising from
work of staff and students of the University • Cambridge Enterprise reviews inventions for patenting within 30
days – or longer if mutually agreed• Copyright in software belongs to academics
Organisational Structure – as of December 2006• Cambridge Enterprise is a Limited Company• The University of Cambridge is the shareholder
30
Structure and GovernanceCambridge Enterprise Relationship to
University of Cambridge Committee Structure
Regent House
CouncilGeneral
Board
EducationResearch
PolicyFinance
CommitteePlanning & Resources
BuildingsCouncils of
Schools
Cambridge Enterprise Ltd
Board of DirectorsInterfaces Here
Cambridge Enterprise Ltd
Chief Executive Interfaces Here
as a member RPC
31
Markets
• The focus of the plan are the internal and external markets CE must understand and address:
– The primary internal customers are University of Cambridge academics and also include:
• Academics and Students• Administration (VC, Pro-VC, Registrary, Financial Director)• Departments and Schools• Colleges• Units with overlapping interests (RSD, Communications, Development)• Governing bodies
– The primary external customers are buyers of IP or licensees but also include:
• Companies interested in IP• Investors interested in University affiliated companies and entrepreneurs• Organisations with relationships with the above such as Consultancies• Professional advisors (fund raisers, banks, law firms, accountants• Service providers such as incubators• Government and other granting agencies
32
Principles
1. Accept cases into the portfolio with the strongest potential to make a significant positive impact and using commercial channels is the most reasonable means to bring the idea forward.
2. Take the course which supports commercialisation of the technology.
3. Work effectively with the inventor(s) to support their aspirations, manage conflicts and encourage synergy with the mission of the university.
4. Find the best partner (licensee or start-up senior management and investors) to take the idea forward.
5. Negotiate fair and reasonable terms which reflect the contribution of the assets and expertise being transferred.
6. Close lots of good deals.
7. Look after the deals once they are closed.
33
9 points to consider in licensing university technology
1. Universities should reserve the right to practice licensed inventions and allow other non-profit and governmental organisations to do so.
2. Exclusive licenses should be structured in a manner that encourages technology development and use.
3. Strive to minimize the licensing of future improvements.4. Universities to anticipate and help manage technology transfer
related conflicts of interest.5. Ensure broad access to research tools.6. Enforcement action should be carefully considered.7. Be mindful of export regulations.8. Be mindful of the implications of working with patent aggregators.9. Consider including provisions that address unmet needs, such as
those of neglected patient populations or geographic areas, giving particular attention to improved therapeutics, diagnostics and agriculture technologies for the developing world.
34
Closing thoughts
• The environment for our working grows increasing complex. These complexities are: cultural, political, legal, financial, operational, technical and interpersonal.
• Working well at the interface of for-profit and not-for-profit systems is one of the keys capturing value from innovation. Both systems work well: for-profit system and the academic innovation machine. If you compromise either one delivering innovation to the public isn’t sustainable. In order to work at this interface it’s important to understand and respect both machines.
• One of major challenges in working at this interface is managing multiple missions. That is we are, as a university, engaged in commercialising certain research results for the purpose of: a better world, a more robust economy, service and support to academics and students, building industry relationships, and revenue generation.
• Capturing a fair return on our intellectual property assets is not only and responsibility, it is irresponsible not to do this.
• Accordingly, a principle centred approach is more important than ever. And, innovation is more important than ever: innovation doesn’t just need to occur in the laboratory, it needs to occur in policy, legal, financial and business arenas as well.
35
A selection of technology companies formed by University of Cambridge staff and students
-
Cambridge Positioning Systems Ltd
High accuracy mobile location solutions
www.cursorsystem.com
October 1997
Cambridge Display Technology Inc
Application of light emitting polymers
www.cdtltd.co.uk
July 1992
Granta Design Limited
Software for engineering materials IT
www.grantadesign.com
April 1994
BlueGnome Ltd
Statistical modelling software for drug -
discovery.
www.cambridgebluegnome.com
October 2001
Cambridge Flow Solutions Ltd
Consultancy and provider of CFD software
www.cambridgeflowsolutions.com
February 1999
ZinWave Ltd
Unified wireless infrastructure
www.zinwave.com
November 2002
-
Metalysis Ltd
Generic Electrolytic Processes
www.metalysis.com
October 2001
Hypertag Ltd
Wireless Information Access
www.hypertag.com
December 2003
Plastic Logic Ltd
Development of Plastic Semiconductors
www.plasticlogic.com
November 2000
-
Cambridge Semiconductor Ltd
Power Electronics
www.camsemi.com
July 2000
CEDAR Audio Limited
Signal Processing
www.cedaraudio.com
February 1989
Genapta Ltd
Next generation bio photonics
www.genapta.com
July 2001
36
Cambridge Biotechnology Ltd
Neuroscience drug target and discovery
www.camb-biotech.com
June 2001
Biotica Technology Ltd
bioticaTECHNOLOGY LIMITED
bioticaTECHNOLOGY LIMITED
Therapeutic polyketides
www.biotica.co.uk
April 1997
De Novo Pharmaceuticals
Ltd
In Silico drug design
www.denovopharma.com
April 1999
Astex Technology Ltd
Fragment-based drug discovery
www.astex-technology.com
December 1999
Co-founded with University Staff
KuDOS Pharmaceuticals Ltd
DNA repair inhibitors and other small molecule anticancers
www.kudospharma.co.uk
December 1997
A Selection of Biotechnology companies formed by University of Cambridge staff and students
Cambridge Biotransforms Ltd
Bio-organic chemical transformations
March 1997
Diagnostics for the Real
World Ltd
Diagnostics f or the Real World Ltd
Diagnostics for third world countries
April 2003
Daniolabs Ltd
Phenotype driven drug discovery
www.daniolabs.com
July 2002
Solexa Ltd
The analysis of DNA
www.solexa.co.uk
September 1998
Paradigm Therapeutics Ltd
Novel drug targets
www.paradigm-therapeutics.co.uk
June 1998
24/05/2004 © Cambridge Enterprise, 2nd Floor, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB. Phone: +44 (0) 1223 760339. Fax: +44 (0) 1223 332988. E-mail: [email protected]
Chroma Therapeutics Ltd
Novel anti-cancer medicines
September 2001
Akubio Ltd
Acoustic Detection Technology
www.akubio.com
August 2001
37
for additional information
• www.autm.net
• www.univo.org.uk
• www.praxiscourses.org.uk
38
Cambridge Enterprise LimitedUniversity of Cambridge10 Trumpington Street
CambridgeCB2 1QA
www.enterprise.cam.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 760339Fax: +44 (0) 1223 764888
Valuing Innovation
Imperial Innovations
Valuing Innovation
Integrating Innovation
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Imperial College London
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Business Mission
Customers
Marketing
R & D
Products & Services
Sales
Procurement,Supply & Back-Office
Profit
Investment
Shareholders
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
The University Mission
University
Technology Transfer
Teaching Research
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Business & University Interaction
Customers
Marketing
R & D
Products & Services
Sales
Procurement,Supply & Back-Office
Profit
Investment
ShareholdersUniversity
Technology Transfer
Spin-out
Licence
•Management•Capital•Incubation
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Imperial College London Science, medicine and technology based institution Rated 9th university in the world research rankings
(THES) Top ranked in the UK in terms of research
Over 3,000 staff conducting research14 Nobel laureates and 2 Field medallists
~ £248m annual research income (31st July 2005) ~£20m annual research income from industry Imperial College’s key strengths
Focused on industrial problemsMulti-disciplinary approach
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Imperial Innovations
1987 – Technology transfer office set up to exploit Imperial’s IP
1997 – DTI Biotech –exploitation and incubation programme
2002 – UCSF plus financing deals with Nikko and FF&P provide funds for spin-outs
2004 – Contract for Carbon Trust Incubation programme
2005 – Partial private placement of shares provide funds for investment
2005 – Contract for WRAP incubation programme
2006 – IPO raised further £26m for expansion
and investment
2006 – Opened BioIncubator
2006 – Commercialisation Services Contract
BAE Systems
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
From the Lab to Market
InventorTechnology Transfer Market ResearchIndustry Experts
Field Trial SalesTechnologyMarket/Application
Commercialisation RealisationRoyalties
Proof of ConceptDesign
Spin-out IncubationLicence Management
ProductProduct
Champion
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Organisation
Idea generation
•IP protection
•Proof of Concept
•Commercialisation decision
•Company concepts scoped
•Marketing/market research
•Licensing
•Company formation
•Board/management
•Incubation
•Investment ready
proposition
•Shareholder management
•Follow-on financings
•Strategic input
•Liquidity events
•Exits
Imperial College London
Imperial InnovationsIntegrated Model
Engineering & PhysicsTechnology Transfer
Medicine & Life SciencesTechnology Transfer
New Ventures
Investment Management
Engineering & Natural Sciences
Medical and Life Sciences
External Sources
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Imperial Innovations
Track Record– 250 new ideas each year– 50 new patents filed each year
– 96 commercial IP deals in bioscience and engineering
– Licence revenue ~ £2m pa– Realisations ~ £1 -2 m pa plus large exits– 58 spin-outs
• 21 at incubation, 37 late stage Team of 41 people
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Leveraging our Networks
Industry– Imperial’s research partners ABB, BAE Systems, Qinetiq,
Rolls Royce, BP, Shell and GSK Innovative programmes
– Shell Carbon Trust – £2m Low Carbon Seed Fund– Lilly Entrepreneur-in-Residence – Johnson & Johnson - Proof of concept
Academic– Panel of advisors and network experts
Investors– Network of investors, angels, VCs, corporate finance – Regular Spin-out forums
Entrepreneurs and Experienced Managers
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Midaz Lasers
Developing world’s smallest, most efficient and highest quality laser Introduced range of industry customers, first laser tested commercially Founded by Professor Mike Damzen and Dr Ara Minassian Experienced management team introduced Proof of Concept funding £25k Seed funding round - £300k, of which£150k from Imperial Innovations Occupied BioIncubator space Sept 06 First product sold Oct 06
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Thickness Monitoring of Pipes
Major international energy company seeking a low cost, widely deployable pipeline wall thickness monitor
Prof Peter Cawley, Imperial NDT group involved in an industry academia liaison group made initial connection
Imperial patented a simple waveguide technology for use with ultrasonic test methods
Negotiated a development and Commercialisation Agreement Currently halfway through development phase
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Imperial Innovations
Intelligent BusinessSolutions
Technology Assessment& Commercialisation
Incubation &Investment
Integrated Business Interaction
Business
Understand Market/Technology Needs
Others Imperial College London
Create appropriate commercial deals to Transfer Technology
Source suitable technologies
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Summary Operational Issues
University Technology Transfer is part of a New Product Development Process
Achieve critical mass of good quality IP Establish industrial networks and use them
to get market knowledge Collaborate with other partner organisations
to deliver new product solutions not just good IP
Understand how to build value
© Imperial Innovations™Valuing Innovation
Summary Policy Issues
Technology Transfer is long-term, 5-8 years from lab to product sales
Continuity of resource is important Freedom for local decision-making on use
of resources Ensure resources add value-use metrics The role of venture capital IPR-Local institutional ownership preferred The relationship between Institution and
Technology Transfer Operation should be commercial not departmental
Sixth Annual Knowledge Economy ForumSixth Annual Knowledge Economy ForumPanel 3BPanel 3B
Supporting University Spin-Offs via IPR PoliciesSupporting University Spin-Offs via IPR Policies
Cambridge19 April 2007
Pol van den BergenPrisma Technology Management
Existing situationExisting situation
Valorisation: Process converting Research into sustainable commercial application=> Deficient process in Europe
European economy fails to promote new/successful innovative firms compared to USA
The current innovation policy is disjointed at the European level.
There is no collaboration between the key players in the European innovation policy.
The European Paradox:The European Paradox:Knowledge Investment hardly pays off in new BusinessKnowledge Investment hardly pays off in new Business
In Holland: 40.000 start ups pa3 % “high” tech start up = 120070 % Internet related 30% = 40020% surviving after 3 years = 80
Out of those 80: 15 % come from Universities the rest comes from Larger Companies.15%= 12 pa. “sustainable” companies….
No Figures for Business Renewal.
ValorValor
Development of an effective joint Development of an effective joint trans-national knowledge trans-national knowledge valorisation process and valorisation process and
coordinated innovation policycoordinated innovation policy
Start date: 1 October 2006Start date: 1 October 2006
OSEO anvar
Pera
Dublin BIC
CDTIADER
ADI
VINNOVA
CCIAA
FFG
PTJNGI
JAPTI
EAS
IWT
TTGV
MATIMOP
VALOR
Consortium
Strategic ObjectivesStrategic Objectives
To develop an effective and coherent coordination of EU policy
=> State of the art valorisation process (VP)
To increase valorisation programme efficiency by joint actions
combined good practices from shared experiences
analysis of national programmes and requirements
To support the innovation process through coordinated trans-national joint initiatives
=> enhance complementarity between regional/national and
European valorisation programmes
To create a network of programme managers for sustained, long-term co-operation between programmes
The Policy Problem The Policy Problem
ResearchGrowing company
Valorisation/Commercialization Process
• Lack of financing• Lack of competence• Lack of ”Business
creation arenas”• Weak incentives• Lack of qualification
systems• Lack of Common IPR
Rules
Valorisation comprises different phasesValorisation comprises different phases
Research Valorisation Business
“Identification” “Breeding” “Launch”Example of phases within Valorisation
Example of phases within Valorisation
• The challenges are different in each phase
• Every phase can go on for a short or long period of time
• Each phase requires its own financing instruments, conditions and processes
The Starting Point for the Valorisation The Starting Point for the Valorisation ProcessProcess
Research Valorisation Business
Research based application ideas with interesting commercial potential supported by R&D-results with unique properties or
functionalities which have a potential to support long-term competitiveness within one or several application areas
Research based application ideas with interesting commercial potential supported by R&D-results with unique properties or
functionalities which have a potential to support long-term competitiveness within one or several application areas
Valorisation – transfer of research results Valorisation – transfer of research results to an established companyto an established company
Qualification andVerification
Knowledge and technology
transfer
Research Business Renewal
Knowledge and Technology TransferKnowledge and Technology Transfer
Qualification andVerification
Knowledge and technology
transferBusiness Renewal
Transferable IPR
Licensee/Buyer
Technology Transfer
Verified Business Support
Transfer of research results performed• Knowledge transfer• Technology transfer• Research result integrated in company
operations (R&D, production, business development)
Transfer of research results performed• Knowledge transfer• Technology transfer• Research result integrated in company
operations (R&D, production, business development)
Universities might be the Cork on the Bottle…….The Universities might be the Cork on the Bottle…….The State of Mind is important..State of Mind is important..
In the US a Scientist has three personalities. He/She is at the same Time:
A ScientistAn Expert in Finance An Entrepreneur
In Europe a Scientist is used to a more or less “safe Environment”, He still is a “Researcher made for Research”Many Times Universities are the Bottle Neck in the Process, defining their Sole Reason of Being in :
ResearchEducation
and not in“Valorisation”, or: “Commercialization of Knowledge”.
But the Climate is changing; Pressure on Universities to take a more business like Approach in Knowledge and Technology Transfer is increasing; they have to make money too….Bit by bit the Professor and his Students become Entrepreneurs be it that the Transfer still is sailing I between Scylla and Charybdis…
IPR …Universities’ Approach in case of IPR …Universities’ Approach in case of spin-offs is crucial…spin-offs is crucial…
Almost all Countries have a nice Patent Law and I will not dig deeper in the European patent Law History…Unfortunately in Europe in many Countries there is no clear legislation/Regulation to the further distribution of Rights, this in contradiction to the US where since 1980 the Bayh-Dohl Act is applied.
Legally in most of the countries Universities are the Owners of Inventions made by their Employees.
• As a Consequence they are free to sell or license out Anything any Way they like…
• Many times they use their own RegimesSo in Holland a “Code of Conduct” is under discussion for several years already
IPR in the case of University Spin-Offs.. the ideal Code of IPR in the case of University Spin-Offs.. the ideal Code of Conduct in case of Patent TransferConduct in case of Patent Transfer
Pay back of CostsPay back of Costs
Universities have invested heavily to get and maintain patents; estimation for a worldwide patent = € 100.000Delft University spent for Maintenance € 500.000 pa in 2004 for all Patents.
These patenting Costs should be paid back; the University should by all Means get a Royalty free License for Research and Education PurposesTransfer Costs should be paid backRoyalties can be :
A Percentage of the Turn Over / or something like : “The Higher the Turn Over, the lower the Percentage”A specific Sum per Product.
Patent TransferPatent Transfer
The Spin-Off/Start Up pays a Lump Sum for Rights gainedOr Royalty Rights are applied: e.g. the Higher the Turn Over the Lower the Percentage
Agreement that the Amount paid by the Start Up will be spent for Research on the specific Issue by the University
Stock Appreciation Rights [SAR] : claim equals a percentage of Shares issued; no Power no Liabilities
In all Cases the Spin-Off should have the Duty to commercialize…
Licensing…Licensing…
Exclusivity for the Spin-Off is vitalThe Agreement should be clear and well definedTerritory should be definedTime Period should be clear
A Lump Sum/Entrance Fee can be paidRoyalties can be asked for by the UniversityMinimum Turnover defined: Loss of Exclusivity as Penalty
Thomas Jefferson…Thomas Jefferson…
QuoteThat Ideas should freely spread from One to Another over the
Globe, for the moral and mutual Instruction of Man and Improvement of his Condition, seems to have peculiarly and benevolently designed by Nature, when She made them, like Fire, expansible over all Space, without lessening their Density at any Point, and like the Air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of Confinement or exclusive Appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in Nature be a Subject of Property.
Unquote
Third US president: Ideals of Republicanism 1776.
Bayh DohlBayh Dohl
In the US in 1980 Measures such as the Bayh-Dohl Act were introduced. Under Bayh-Dohl “Grantees”/Contractors in Government R&D Contracts get the Ownership of these patents. But if you don’t use, you lose it….The Aim was enhancing Public’s Access to technology funded with Government Money.As a Consequence many universities established Technology licensing Offices, which accelerated the Tie-ups between Industry and Academia. This Arrangement gave Birth to many new Industries, including Information Technology and Bio-technology. The Collaboration also served as a Catalyst for the Recovery of the US Economy during the 1990s.
An Advice might be…An Advice might be…
A wise Advice might be :Do not make the same mistakes as we didDo not assume that a nice Patent Law is enoughDo not just leave it, seek Things out, the one Way or the Other….Give the Spin offs Security; make your Approach reliable and once a Regime is established keep it and maintain itDo not think a Patent is the solution to all ProblemsIt is expensive to register, it is difficult to scout infringements and its is even more expensive to defend your RightsIn Micro Electronics some Times you even should abstain, in Medicine you cannot do without
In the InnoNet Valor eventually we will be able to help; you might even join in.Thank You.