Technology transfer and patents: Implications for the production of scientific knowledge

Technical Communication Quarterly

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 315-328

  Durack, Katherine T ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951521492     PISSN: 10572252     EISSN: 15427625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1503_3     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, 35 U.S.C.S. § 200 et seq.
2. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3. Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London: Taylor & Francis.
4. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Blumenstyk, G. (2002, October 25). Court ruling revives patent lawsuit against Duke U. Chronicle of Higher Education, A33.
6. Blumenstyk, G. (2003, December 19). Inventions produced almost $1-billion for universities in 2002. Chronicle of Higher Education, A28.
7. Blumenstyk, G. (2005, March 4). Science association assesses impact of quickening drive for patents. Chronicle of Higher Education, A31.
8. Commission of the European Communities. (2002). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Councill—An assessment of the implications for basic genetic engineering research of failure to publish, or late publication of, papers on subjects which could be patentable as required under Article 16(b) of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions—COM (2002). Retrieved September 28, 2005, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/invent/index.htm
9. Copeland, R. G., & Meagher, T. F. (2005, May 27). Academics must protect their patent rights. Chronicle of Higher Education, B6.
10. Doheny-Farina, S. (1992). Rhetoric, innovation, technology: Case studies of technical communication in technology transfers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Dowie, M. (2005). Gods and monsters. In A. Lightman (Ed.), The best American science writing (pp. 90–102). New York: Harper Perennial.
12. Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? New York: New Press.
13. Durack, G., Wallace, J. D., Vandre, G. P., Westfall, L. A., Hatcher, J. T., & Nayak, N. V. (2005). U.S. Patent Application No. 20050112541. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
14. Foster, A. L. (2005, September 30). U.S. patent office upholds web-browser patent issued to U. of California and disputed by Microsoft. Chronicle of Higher Education Daily News Archive. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/09/2005093001t.htm
15. Hansen, S., Brewster, A., & Asher, J. (2005). Intellectual property in the AAAS scientific community: A descriptive analysis of the results of a pilot survey on the effects of patenting in science. Retrieved November 1, 2005, from American Association for the Advancement of Science, Directorate for Science and Policy Programs website: http://sippi.aaas.org
16. Hunter, W., Rummery, G. M., Herbert, B. R., & Durack, M. C. A. (2005). U.S. Patent Application No. 20050072678. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
17. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18. Mangan, K. S. (2005, April 1). U. of Texas files patent lawsuit. Chronicle of Higher Education, A39.
19. McSherry, C. (2001). Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Miele, A. L. (2000). Patent strategy: The manager’s guide to profiting from patent portfolios. New York: Wiley.
21. Patentability of Inventions, 35 Part II U.S.C. § 10-101. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office 2001).
22. Pulley, J. L. (2005, October 31). NIH accidentally posts confidential grant applications on the web. Chronicle of Higher Education Daily News Archive. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/10/2005103103n.htm
23. Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. American Scientist 91(1), 52–59.
24. Read, B. (2004). New software uses fake songs to confound would-be music traders. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, A25. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/texis/chronicle/search
25. Source Translation Optimization. (n.d.). Legal resources and tools for surviving the patenting frenzy of the Internet, bioinformatics, and electronic commerce. Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://www.bustpatents.com
26. University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property Office. (n.d.). How to prevent grant proposals from barring patent protection. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://www.ipo.uc.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=overview.how
27. Ustinova, E. A., & Chelisheva, O. V. (1996). Are Markush structures matters of chemistry and law or just figments of the imagination? World Patent Information, 18, 23–31.
28. Walker, R. D. (1995). Patents as scientific and technical literature. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
29. Weiss, R. (2005, February 13). US denies patent for part-human hybrid: Scientist aimed to prevent others’ use. Boston Globe. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/13/us_denies_patent_for_part_human_hybrid?pg=2