The Broken Symmetry blog published an interesting discussion of the limits of prize systems for inventions entitled: "Why the Venetians didn't use the prize system for inventions" at this link http://brokensymmetry.typepad.com/broken_symmetry/2008/06/why-the-venetia.html

BayhDole25 is pleased to provide for download selected chapters from the new PIPRA/MIHR publication: Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (eds A. Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen, et al). MIHR: Oxford, U.K. and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A., 2007.

BayhDole25’s own Susan Finston contributed the chapter: "Technology Transfer Snapshots from Middle-Income Countries: Creating Socio-Economic Benefits through Innovation." (See attachments to this posting.)

By Susan Finston, Board Chair, BayhDole25, Inc.:

On April 12, 2007, I attended the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) conference, Innovation Policy and the Economy, organized by Adam Jaffe, Joshua Lerner, and Scott Stern.

The NBER half-day conference took on a central question facing U.S. policymakers in the coming months: does the U.S. patent regime and related technology transfer system harm innovation and growth by favoring right-holders to the detriment of overall growth? Despite the repeated insistence by Robert Litan (Kauffman Foundation, Brookings) that “the system is broken,” other speakers, most notably Edward Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), provided compelling data that the U.S. economy continues to promote innovative technologies and to create jobs.

While the entire morning was useful and interesting for those with an interest in innovation and economic policy, the first session on university research and commercialization, provided the most fireworks, to the extent possible at a gathering of generally collegial academics, government officials and consultants. This blog focuses on that discussion.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2007, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Microsoft vs. AT&T. Because BayhDole25 had filed an amicus brief in the case, I attended the oral argument.

It was very interesting to see what aspects of the case were the most important to the Justices and what points were stressed by the attorneys (Ted Olsen for Microsoft, Daryl Joseffer for the U.S. Department of Justice, and Seth Waxman for AT&T). Microsoft seemed to gain substantial sympathy for the view that an affirmation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision would create open-ended liability for U.S. corporations commercial activities abroad.

On January 23, 2007, BayhDole25 filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States related to the Microsoft vs. AT&T (Microsoft) case currently pending. The case raises critical questions as to the appropriateness of patent protection for software and other intangible inventions, placing at issue the core assets of researchers at universities and research institutions, as well as other biotechnology and high-technology entrepreneurs seeking to bring new products to market.

Long before the founding of BayhDole25 in 2005, science and technology experts saw the need for India to adopt technology transfer legislation to advance commercialization of science. With little government support and no prospect of implementation, this remained the province of scientists and academics. Dr. R. A. Mashelkar has been an early and persistent advocate, calling India’s history with Bayh-Dole mechanisms “a series of missed busses.” I am a relative late-comer; in January, 2004, Dr. Chakrabarty urged me to focus on this at the Indian Science Congress in Chandigargh, http://www.expresspharmaonline.com/20040205/happenings05.shtml and then again at the June 2005 meeting of the U.S./India High Technology Coordination Group (HTDG), in Washington DC. At the HTCG, it was an exciting, dramatic moment when Dr. Bhan, the Director of India’s Department of Biotechnology, announced in response to my presentation that he had just that day received authorization from Kapil Sibal-sab, Minister for Science and Technology, to develop tech transfer legislation for adoption in India.

Dan Woods, executive director of BayhDole25 Inc, is pleased to announce José Miguel Flores Acuña, a distinguished attorney and professor of Corporative Law and Tech Transfer at the Universidad de Concepción, Chile, has joined the board of directors.

In honor of our nation’s birthday, my family visited the Mount Vernon plantation of George and Martha Washington, and nearby George Washington Gristmill. In addition to being a nice way to spend part of the Fourth of July, the Gristmill provides one of our nation’s early technology transfer success stories.

This dispatch comes from, Susan Finston, BayhDole25, Inc. Chair, who attended World IP Day In Washington on Wednesday 26 April

Yesterday I heard, not for the first time, an interesting speaker who turns on its head the idea that intellectual property and the technology transfer it supports, benefits the rich at the expense of the poor. I have long been a fan of Professor Lee Reed, of the University of Georgia. He was the Keynote luncheon speaker at an Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) April 26th event held in honor of World Intellectual Property (IP Day). He noted, correctly, that since the dawn of time the rich have found a way to protect their property (and by extension IP), whether through high walls or private security. It is the poorest and least advantaged among us, whether individuals or nations, who are truly in need of protection of intellectual property, to ensure the freedom to exclude others. In his words, “property is liberty,” in the most fundamental sense.

My name is Dan Woods, Executive Director of BayhDole25, Inc.

It is with great pleaasure that I write this blog entry. It is the culmination of months of effort from me and the team I assembled to help, and Susan Finston and Al Chakrabarty, the other members of the board of directors. We have set out to create an educational resource to help explain the value of the role the Bayh Dole Act of 1980 has played in technology transfer.