I was one of the backers of this provision at FC08 and am happy we're going to further discuss it. Obviously this is the topic about which SFC is least knowledgeable, but I truly think if we stand for the principles that we do, patent policy has to be one of our targets.
A little history (from an admitted non-expert): In 1980 the Bayh-Dole Act encouraged universities to patent their inventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act). Before this, most research scientists released their work for free to be built upon and improved. In response, many schools set up "technology commercialization offices" or something similar. Bayh-Dole was built upon the fallacy that more IP protection means more innovation. As everyone on this list knows, that is wrong. There is a lot of evidence that universities have begun hoarding patents and seeking to use them as a source of income - leading to a decrease in collaboration, transparency and basic research ( http://techdirt.com/articles/20080911/0304512236.shtml). In addition, because only a few universities have commercially viable breakthroughs, these departments for commercializing inventions by professors or grad students have become a net cost for schools ( http://techdirt.com/articles/20080115/013002.shtml). Boldrin and Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" has a lot of this research and a recent article in Nature shows that biotech scientists are waking up to this ( http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-36.html) So what's happening is that patents, used strategically, are increasing the cost of research and innovation. This is happening at universities whose express mission is to spread and expand knowledge. SFC is in the unique position of being stakeholders in this debate. We pay these schools and if patents are losing money for the school or harming its mission, we should be heard. There is also the social justice side of this that Brian Rowe can speak to. As for the definition of "public good," I'm personally not too bothered that it is open-ended. It allows chapters to enter a discussion with their university about how to use their patent reserves - non-enforcement? nominal fees? no more patenting? On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Kevin Driscoll <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Matt, > > This is definitely the one that we tangled with the most back in > October. I readily admit my general ignorance about the history of > this topic but others made convincing arguments for its inclusion. > > What are some good past cases that we can examine and use for reference? > > When have universities failed to wield the patent privilege responsibly? > > When has the "public good" (however you choose to define it) been > damaged, weakened, or not improved because of a university-owned > patent? > > Big thanks for bringing this one back to the table! > Kevin > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Matt Senate <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > The name is Matt Senate, Free Culture undergrad at UC Berkeley. Some of > us > > have been discussing the ambiguity of the fourth requirement for an "Open > > University": > > > > 4. If the university holds patents, it readily licenses them for free > > software, essential medicines, and the public good. > > > > The other requirements are straight-forward and seemingly attainable. > > However the "public good" claim here seems too open-ended. Is this fourth > > requirement realistic? Do we wish it to remain an ideal or do we want to > > think practically? In what ways can we demand our Universities to openly > > license patents that are created through University research? Perhaps > only > > demanding the release of free software and essential medicines is one end > of > > the spectrum (a very realistic/practical goal). The other end would then > be > > the release of all patents (one argument being that publicly funded > research > > should be open to the public). Where do we want to fall on this spectrum, > or > > better yet, what is the best position that will be the most fruitful > > overall? > > > > I and other Berkeley FCers appreciate any and all thoughts. > > > > - Matt Senate > > University of California at Berkeley > > Mathematics / Creative Writing > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Kevin Donovan Georgetown '11: SFS 630.849.8285
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
