Description Who we are: AUTM is the nonprofit leader in efforts to educate, promote and inspire professionals to support the development of academic research that changes the world and drives innovation forward through technology transfer. In this role, as a Regional Support Manager, you will be employed by AUTM in support of its agreement to run the Federal Laboratory Consortium FLC , in charge of regional technology transfer and technology based economic development programs. This a remote position and is open to candidates in all geographic areas, but applicants based in the Washington, DC or Chicago areas are preferred to facilitate more frequent meetings with other staff. Coordinate across the AUTM to provide for up to six Regional Annual Meetings including meeting planning, support, training, and promotion Provide support for technology transfer opportunities in the Regions that support facilitation of technology transfer by the labs and businesses on technology specific areas. Create and maintain an events calendar by Region and across all of Regional activities Moderate discussions across FLC regions. Provide content on region specific pages and information on the FLC website.

Author:Dusida Zulujinn
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):2 October 2012
PDF File Size:2.83 Mb
ePub File Size:3.77 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Posted on December 12, by Gerald Barnett The Association of University Technology Managers, a front group for university licensing professionals, conducts an annual survey of the universities that its members work for. The survey asks for various metrics regarding inventions, patenting, licensing, startups, and revenue. Seven here, two more to follow in the next article. The AUTM survey data are not validated. What the GAO observed. For instance, for years the University of Washington faked its start-up metrics vastly exaggerating the number of startups each year , reported the fake numbers to AUTM, and then cites AUTM as the source for its continuing claims to be a startup powerhouse, as if AUTM had conducted its own independent research on the matter.

But no, AUTM merely feeds back what universities report to it, uncritically, merrily. How does one validate an estimate? Universities duplicate the reporting of inventions, patents, and startups. A number of inventions made at universities are actually co-invented by researchers working for different universities. Each university requires the disclosure of each invention, however, and adds that invention disclosure to its annual totals, which most universities then dutifully report to AUTM.

You can see that as universities reports inventions, a number of inventions with co-inventors at different universities will be counted multiple times. For any given university, this is not much of a big deal—round up those half or third inventions to whole invention—but as soon as someone starts to add up the inventions across universities to get some grand total, things go bad. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. AUTM makes no attempt to present accurately what is going on.

Big numbers matter. Call it the blindness of confirmation bias. Call it political bluffery. The definitions of invention and license are not directed to patentable inventions or to patents. A technology might be an invention but it could also be software, or photographs, or whatever—pretty much anything that a university licensing office insists on handling or at least reviewing.

Look then how things get muddled when it comes to disclosure of technologies: Thus, a disclosure could be for a half-baked idea, not patentable, or a piece of software—and the next year, the same idea, now perhaps more fully baked, might be disclosed again, or a software program updated to a new release and re-disclosed. We are far removed from counting discrete patentable inventions. The activity measures reported are unrelated to one another within any given annual reporting period.

The number technologies disclosed has nothing to do with the number of patents that issue in that same reporting period, and almost nothing to do with patent applications filed, licenses granted, startups, or even the research funding received. A disclosure this year may set up a patent application next year or the year after; one or more patents may issue three or four or six years later depending on one games the patent prosecution; an invention might be licensed immediately—even before the invention is disclosed, if the license is granted up front in a sponsored research agreement; and startups might form at any time based on disclosures from years ago.

At best, the AUTM survey reports estimated activity, but does not show at all whether any of the estimated activities are related to one another. A university licensing office might have lots of activity—disclosures, patents, licenses, and even income—and still be totally ineffective and inconsequential. Anyone who thinks to compare disclosures and patent applications and patents issuing, or licenses, or research funding for a given year will create fantasy ratios that are entirely artificial.

AUTM does also ask for how many technologies had federal support—but again, technologies are not inventions. The federal funding statements that appear in university patent applications may be entirely skew from the law—showing up when an invention is not a subject invention and failing to appear when an invention is a subject invention. Sure Bayh-Dole is a turd of a law, but university administrators apparently love it all the more.

However, what we might actually want to know is the licensing activity related to federally supported inventions that have indeed been patented. Has a subject invention been used? Has the university used the patent system to promote free competition and enterprise? Has research been unduly encumbered? Has the invention or products based on the invention been manufactured in the United States with United States labor?

What is the date of first commercial sale or use for each subject invention? Has each invention been used so that the benefits are available to the public on reasonable terms?

What is the income received with respect to each subject invention—not just royalties, but all such income? It is as if AUTM does not want to know. Inventions that were never subject inventions are reported as if they were the result of Bayh-Dole. Economic impact is estimated and reported as fact based on a range of university-industry collaborations, not the economic impact that arises from the beneficial use of inventions made with federal support.

Yeah—the other activities—expenditure of federal research funds, expenditure of industry research funds, expenditure of investment funds from all sources in the development of companies which also may have licensed technologies from universities —swamp out the economic impact of the benefits of using federally supported inventions.

One can get 10 to 30 disclosures a year per lab from any productive engineering lab if one wants, regardless of extramural funding. And one might not get any invention disclosures from a well funded nursing program or architecture program or communications program. And one may get no disclosures from operating clinical trials—as if it is sponsored research—clinical trials income may be substantial, and have nothing to do with funded research that is intended to discover or invent.

AUTM would have people believe that extramural funding and meaningful inventions are somehow critically related. The amount of funding does not cause invention, or even creative ideas. It goes the other way around—creative ideas may lead to funding, or the other way around, too, the prospect of funding may lead to less creative ideas. Better to get funded and do something half stupid or half already done than to risk not getting funded for something really creative.

Total license income, too, is meaningless. By way of example, the University of Washington rode income from its expression of polypeptides in yeast invention for over twenty years the patent term was tolled during an interference. But for those twenty years, UW sure looked sweet on that critical measure of total licensing income.

Otherwise, UW has had an underperforming, always in a dither licensing program with more marketing hype about itself than substance—and it could afford the marketing hype because it got its share of the polypeptide in yeast income, even though the invention was handled by the Washington Research Foundation, an outside invention management agent, and not the UW licensing office.

One can say similar things about many other university licensing programs—UW here is not an isolated instance. The number of new patent applications filed is a function of the money available to file patent applications and the lack of selectivity with which a university licensing office operates.

The more applications filed, the more expensive the bluster and the more research results that go behind an administrative paywall. More is not at all better; more is not more productive; more is not more potential for public benefit.

Share this:.


Search for Jobs

Yogami An upward trend in patent application filing activity in recent years led to the surve of 7, patents to academic institutions during The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog. Such licenses with smaller entities appear to be growing more important to academic institutions as licenses to large entities decreased by 16 percent from down to a total of 2, licenses. Prior to that act, no new drugs or vaccines were commercialized when the government took patent rights away from inventing organizations. When comparing patent applications filed by U. AUTM licensing survey In an executive summary section entitled The Perils of Eroding Patent RightsAUTM notes that aktm slight decrease in options and exclusive license agreements compared to the number of non-exclusive license agreements could be due to fears that licensing companies have over protecting the intellectual property under the current iteration of the U.


AUTM licensing activity survey : FY 2008 : full report

Print Article According to the Survey of the Association of University Technology Managers AUTM , which was just released today, during fiscal year , new companies were formed as a result of university research, which is one more than the formed in and 41 more than the formed in The increase, while modest, does come despite a downturn in the U. The AUTM survey also shows that invention disclosures continue to rise, patent applications are up, and during fiscal year there was a surprisingly high increase in foreign filings over fiscal year Stevens, DPhil. Of the U.


UMass ranks fourth in nation-wide tech licensing survey



Nine Points to Consider (with regard to AUTM’s licensing survey), 1-7


Related Articles