3 ms·
Generally they want to license the IP to you, which might be a good idea as it adds prestige, plus they will defend it in court. Note that even if your technolo
by unishark 7y ago
Generally they want to license the IP to you, which might be a good idea as it adds prestige, plus they will defend it in court. Note that even if your technology did not infringe on their patents, your marketing claims might have appeared to.
Many schools try to make money by licensing patents, even giant public schools (oddly). Faculty and research staff are pressed to make invention disclosures of ongoing research that hasn't been published yet, and the school decides if it can make money patenting it. If they do, the inventor gets a cut.
In terms of ownership, all govt funding of the research means is the govt itself gets a free license to use it, not the public.
- glangdale 7y agoNone of the patents seemed to have anything to do with anything we did whether actual IP or marketing claims. I think the generalized scheme was "spam out this huge brochure to enough people and hope we get something back". I understand the whole 'ownership of govt funded stuff' well enough; I don't think I am entitled to ride around in a tank. And yet it doesn't seem entirely like the public good that was trying to be achieved, especially this kind of spammy approach, where they clearly had no idea of which patent we might be "infringing" or interested in licensing.