In the UK many Universities policies lay claim to IPR as belonging to
the university, rather than the academic (this is based on UK IPR law
which says that IP belongs to the employer rather than the employee). So
giving up IPR can be problematical and could leave an academic in breach
of contract .... though I don't suppose that most universities would
pursue this. Recently, at UCL we were presented with new IPR policy
which says that /all/ /patentable IP created during the course of our
duties/ is owned the university. We are challenging this through our
academic board (senate) and have managed to get a Academic Board members
to sit on a committee to redraft it. It would be interesting to hear
what the IPR policies of other universities are like. I have heard that
in Aberdeen academics on their senate have managed to get their IPR
policy rewritten by invoking the /1926 Slavery Convention, /which states
that slavery is defined as "/the status or condition of a person over
whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are
exercised/". Their augment was that by seeking ownership over an
academic's intellectual property was tantamount to seeking ownership
over the academic.
All the best,
Alun
On 04/11/17 23:44, Patrick Shaw Stewart wrote:
There are some interesting anti-patent initiatives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Anti-patent_initiatives
including prizes as an alternative to patents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prizes_as_an_alternative_to_patents#Other_areas_for_prize_models_over_patents
On 4 November 2017 at 15:08, Bernhard Rupp <hofkristall...@gmail.com
<mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> to publish it so the world can benefit from it.
Isn’t that exactly the idea of a patent? Instead of keeping the
invention
a trade secret (occasionally a viable alternative) you publish the
invention,
and the inventor (and in general, the supporting institutions) can get
rewarded if someone plans to use the idea commercially. Someone
(in academia often the tax payer) did pay for the work after all,
and having
an option to recover the money (or god forbid, make a profit…) seems
a reasonable proposition….
Best, BR
*From:* CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] *On Behalf Of *Abhishek Anan
*Sent:* Saturday, November 4, 2017 05:31
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Regarding Patents
I second Gert's thoughts....
Best,
Abhishek
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Vriend
<gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl <mailto:gerrit.vri...@radboudumc.nl>>
wrote:
A related question. If you have a crystal structure and
found a novel ligand binding site that can be used to
regulate protein activity, could you patent such "binding
site"? If not, how to make the best use of such findings?
I would say that the best one can do with important novel
data/information/knowledge/insights is to publish it so the
world can benefit from it.
Gert
--
patr...@douglas.co.uk <mailto:patr...@douglas.co.uk> Douglas
Instruments Ltd.
Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK
Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart
http://www.douglas.co.uk
Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034
Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36
--
Dr Alun R. Coker
Senior Lecturer
Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research
University College London
The Cruciform Building
London
WC1E 6BT
Tel: 020 7679 6703 Ext 46703
Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/pxmed
