Diagnostic Kits/IP Profile of Universities working in Kits: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
AClearwater (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
AClearwater (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
#* Identify what universities are the “Microsofts” of the field and what companies are the “IBMs” of the field (Use the questionnaire to guide your research when appropriate - Carol will select specific relevant questions) | #* Identify what universities are the “Microsofts” of the field and what companies are the “IBMs” of the field (Use the questionnaire to guide your research when appropriate - Carol will select specific relevant questions) | ||
*Henry, M.R., Cho, M.K., Weaver, M.A., Merz, J.F. | *Henry, M.R., Cho, M.K., Weaver, M.A., Merz, J.F. A pilot survey on the licensing of DNA inventions. J. Law Med. Ethics, 31:442-449, 2003 Available at: http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu:16080/prog/ethicsgenes/ | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
**Licensing Behavior ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions|Pressman, L. et al., 2006]]) | **Licensing Behavior ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions|Pressman, L. et al., 2006]]) | ||
***For both entities, licensing was most often used as a method of commercialization. Licensing for research was very infrequent. | ***For both entities, licensing was most often used as a method of commercialization. Licensing for research was very infrequent. | ||
***One important difference found was that nonprofits were more than twice as likely to license exclusively as compared to for-profit companies. | ***One important difference found was that nonprofits were more than twice as likely to license exclusively as compared to for-profit companies. | ||
==Navigation== | ==Navigation== | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 11 September 2009
Answer the questions:
- What are the 5 top Universities in this field?
- Correlate them with their main outputs (Data. Narratives. Tools)
- Understand and identify cases where these universities are “experimenting” or “adopting” commons based approach. Are they adopting OA policies, for instance? Are they adopting Social Responsible License approaches?
- Identify these cases and treat them as entities that will also be placed in our mapping device (the quadrants)
- Identify what universities are the “Microsofts” of the field and what companies are the “IBMs” of the field (Use the questionnaire to guide your research when appropriate - Carol will select specific relevant questions)
- Henry, M.R., Cho, M.K., Weaver, M.A., Merz, J.F. A pilot survey on the licensing of DNA inventions. J. Law Med. Ethics, 31:442-449, 2003 Available at: http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu:16080/prog/ethicsgenes/
- Pressman, L. et al., 2006 The Pressman article reports on an interview which investigates DNA patents at Universities in the United States. The focus of the article is split between: (Pressman, L. et al., 2006)
- patenting and out-licensing strategies of
- licensing negotiations: exclusivity, uses, and terms
- Protection of non-patented technologies: MTAs, NDAs
- Institutions chosen for the study had patents of inventions using human DNA and both for profit and non-profits were sampled. The study found that for profit and non-profit entities approach patent and licenses differently:
- Patenting Behavior (Pressman, L. et al., 2006)
- For profits more often fill patent applications for all new technologies and then deciding what to pursue based on commercial interest.
- Non-profits were more selective about when to apply for a patent.
- Licensing Behavior (Pressman, L. et al., 2006)
- For both entities, licensing was most often used as a method of commercialization. Licensing for research was very infrequent.
- One important difference found was that nonprofits were more than twice as likely to license exclusively as compared to for-profit companies.
- Patenting Behavior (Pressman, L. et al., 2006)