Texas votes to include patents & commercialization in tenure decisions
I have long advocated for the use of "outreach" "impact of research on the community" and/or "public good activities beyond publications" as being important to tenure & promotion decisions at major research institutions (and even non-research institutions). Service, scholarship & teaching are important, but so is showing impact to the community.
The University of Texas system
just decided to add "patents" and "commercialization" to their tenure critieria. I applaud the concept, but I think it's unfortunate the focus is solely on patents (or, at least in this story about it). IP means copyright & trademark, which can be more important, in some cases, than patents. And the focus on "commercialization" rather than (?) public impact may be a problem. Faculty (and staff) across the university can make important contributions to the public, not just hard scientists and engineers.
But I may protest too much. I'd like to see: 1) researchers following how this policy impacts invention disclosures; tenure application packets; products released and companies started in Texas related to UT IP; newspaper stories about UT innovation, etc. AND 2) the policy. I'll need to seek out the second, but I hope researchers are paying attention to the first.
UPDATE: I've since learned that this is not the entire UT system, but only the A&M campus. 6/29/2006
Which tech alliance wins?
Google & Dell, or Yahoo! and eBay, which alliance wins? Obviously time will tell and I am just speculating, but I would put my money on Yahoo! and eBay.
(Side note on my anti-Dell bias: I do not have personal experience with a working, successful Dell device. Yes, I've had mutliple Dell devices (computers, mp3, etc.) and worked with other poor Dell users whom I've had to help "de crappify" their machines. SiliconValley.com had a good post on that not too long ago, but I can't find it now. I personally plan to never purchase another Dell product again.)
But in spite my bias, I can't see that the Google-Dell alliance is all that exciting. Google already has the lead in search, without having to do a "deal" to get them onto more poor Dell users' desktops. Google does not have a busy, advertising-full webpage, and Dell has not had that. So each must branch out into new alliances to create a useful, full-fledged website. While many love the simplicity of the Google webpage (yes, I'm one), it's not exactly welcoming for new users who don't know
what they want to search for yet.
Thus, chalk one up for Yahoo! and eBay, in my book. These are users who may not have come together in another way. Their models are generally complementary. I have never used eBay, but I'm a big Yahoo! messenger fan. (Google has a long way to come in my book in that area.) But perhaps Google's software on a Dell would *blow me away*. My guess is I'll never see it, unless Dell wants to share a free one with me. :-)
Back from Norway
I've returned from my trip to Norway, where I was hosted by the Norweigen Trade & Industry Council, and met with the senior staff of the Norweigen technology transfer offices. Norway launched their formal university technology transfer program just 30 months ago, and are now thinking about measuring the effectiveness of their efforts. The technology transfer offices are centrally (eg federally) funded (at least to some major degree), and so the federal government is interested in the metrics used to see their "return on investment." The offices are all structured differently, and generally seem to have a broader focus than many offices in the U.S. -- at least when the U.S. offices began.
Norway has the advantage of designing offices and metrics in a time where technology transfer is widely acknowledged to include more than just patent management. When U.S. offices began (largely in the 1980s) the best practice was to focus on what was scaleable and had the most market power -- the patent. The market (and how IP is managed & deployed) have now changed. AUTM is working on changing its metrics. . and newer systems have the chance to start "correctly" from the beginning.
Good luck Norway, Taiwan, the Netherlands, etc. . .we are watching. And learning.
Appeals votes with "intent" not "text"
Hey, no more worries about careful drafting. If you're in the 9th Circuit Court, the court will read what you intended,
not what you wrote.
Now, to my non-legal mind, this is not that radical. Folks look at the Congressional hearings to learn "legislative intent" of a law, rather than just looking at the core "law" when the argue about the law, or try to enforce it. With the length & complexity of legal documents these days, it does not seem like a radical concept that contracts have errors in them. I find it helpful to include a "background" section in a contract (where possible) to help such interpretation -- although this was in contracts primarily for the "lay" people (eg people who do not read contracts for a living).
What should we start putting in contracts to enable such "helpfulness" by the courts? Or will the Supremes overturn our beloved 9th circuit once again?
It's back. .
The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 is back. Some of you may remember this was a bill one, if not two years ago. It requires authors to place their work on a free, publicly available website 6 months after initial publication in a journal. Academic publishers are mad. Their business model is currently built on metering access. What if the business model were based on something else -- indexing? providing "related" work? tracking citations? Many choices, but this industry has had a hard time adapting to changing times, since times are always changing! Watch & see.
It isn't about the money
The
Wall Street Journal's article about
research, money & universities this past week might lead one to believe that universities are now trying to bring in greater amounts of money from licensing intellectual property -- and that this is trend that will increase. I suppose there might be a few universities that have financial returns as their paramount goal, but I haven't met any of them. Universities have a mix of goals that they want to achieve: public benefit; opportunities for students; greater corporate and public understanding; and yes, discretionary money to support research.
When federal research dollars do not fully support campus research efforts (which is the bulk of funding in the U.S.), other mechanisms of funding must be sought.
What would the public want??
Whither open access?
Evidently BioMedCentral is
experimeting with some changes in the open access model. Not only have they raised fees that authors pay to publish articles, but they now require the editors of journals to
assign their journal to BioMedCentral. So, open access is about access to articles, but now that BMC has helped to build value in these journals, they want some guarantees that they will stick around. But assignment is not the only mechanism to use to retain (or share in) the created value. Perhaps a license? Or change the model so the journals receive the fees directly, and pay BMC for their services?
Silent blog
With my new duties in
AUTM, time is a little tight. But I'll try to post a bit now & then.
