Diagnostic Kits/IP Profile of Universities working in Kits: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
AClearwater (talk | contribs) |
AClearwater (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
#*Identify these cases and treat them as entities that will also be placed in our mapping device (the quadrants) | #*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) | #* 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) | ||
Pressman Article... | |||
*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/ | *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/ | ||
A pilot survey on the licensing of DNA inventions focuses on the: ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions|(Henry, M.R., et al., 2003)]]) | |||
**patenting and out-licensing strategies | **patenting and out-licensing strategies | ||
**licensing negotiations: exclusivity, uses, and terms | **licensing negotiations: exclusivity, uses, and terms | ||
**Protection of non-patented technologies: MTAs, NDAs | **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: | *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 ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions| | **Patenting Behavior ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions|(Henry, M.R., et al., 2003)]]) | ||
***For profits more often fill patent applications for all new technologies and then deciding what to pursue based on commercial interest. | ***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. | ***Non-profits were more selective about when to apply for a patent. | ||
**Licensing Behavior ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions| | **Licensing Behavior ([[Diagnostic Kits/The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions|(Henry, M.R., et al., 2003)]]) | ||
***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. | ||
Revision as of 14:39, 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)
Pressman Article...
- 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/
A pilot survey on the licensing of DNA inventions focuses on the: ((Henry, M.R., et al., 2003))
- patenting and out-licensing strategies
- 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 ((Henry, M.R., et al., 2003))
- 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 ((Henry, M.R., et al., 2003))
- 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 ((Henry, M.R., et al., 2003))