Over the years, we have discussed how the Bayh-Dole Act, which created incentives for the research results in patents (often federal funded) Professor, failed miserably. Failure is based on bad reasons why people think that the patent system itself to improve innovation – despite much evidence to the contrary. Mistake to think that the main motivation of this research is to extract the highest monetary value in return, and that the key to marketing is permitted. This is not true. In academia, the research is determined by various factors, many of which have little to do with market incentives. Secondly, the key to marketing market tend to need, not licensing opportunities.
But this fact, tons of universities thought they would be rich and to establish technology transfer offices to assist these licensed patents new found wealth. The reality is not good. With a few exceptions (large reputable universities such as Stanford and MIT), almost all of the office of technology transfer has been losing money for college that govern them. In part, this is often because the office of technology transfer to overestimate the patents, and totally underestimated the actual implementation is necessary. But more importantly, the research that comes out in this way are often simply not have much commercial potential – and a big reason that reality may be the patent itself.
To read the full, original article click on this link: More Evidence Shows That Locking Up University Research With Patents Doesn T Help - Technology News
Author:
