[FC-discuss] Open University Campaign: Patent Notion

Matt Senate mattsenate at berkeley.edu
Fri Feb 13 23:53:37 EST 2009 

While it may be theoretically advantages to leave the "public good" 
clause open, in practice it leaves students and organizers without an 
explicit goal. In Universities, establishments of unbridled bureaucracy 
where the status quo reigns supreme, "open ended" means "undefined" and 
therefore unimportant.

This also brings up the issue of solidarity. The best way to bring about 
large-scale change for patents will be a universal acceptance of terms. 
If some Universities are profiting from patents while others are giving 
them away for free and for the "public good," what will encourage them 
to continue to freely license? Green paper trumps ideology. We need to 
have a strong case that captures the urgency and necessity of a new 
approach to patents and, most importantly, builds confidence rather than 
mere faith between Universities.

The goal here, as I see it, is to confront and work with the University, 
including its faculty, staff, and students. But in what way does the 
fourth requirement help us to work with them? If our demands are too 
far-reaching we cannot be taken seriously, but if they are too timid we 
will fall far short of our ideals.

While I'm sure you have good intentions, Kevin, perhaps you should 
consider a more realistic evaluation of what we want to happen with 
patents. Thanks a lot for the history and perspective.

- Matt

Kevin Donovan wrote:
> 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 
> <driscollkevin at gmail.com <mailto:driscollkevin at gmail.com>> 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
>     <mattsenate at berkeley.edu <mailto:mattsenate at berkeley.edu>> 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
>     > Discuss at freeculture.org <mailto:Discuss at freeculture.org>
>     > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>     >
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     Discuss mailing list
>     Discuss at freeculture.org <mailto:Discuss at freeculture.org>
>     http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Kevin Donovan
> Georgetown '11: SFS
> 630.849.8285
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

More information about the Discuss mailing list