Word: patentable
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Your editorial entitled The Great Patent Grab presented a onesided and incomplete description of the controversy. The pertinent question is whether denying professors who research with federal money the right to patent will impede the flow of discovery and invention. As far as I was able to understand it, the CRIMSON editorial did not address itself to this question. The editorial did charge that professors would be left with the alternative of switching from the university to industry. The implication seems to be that this would undermine the quality of research in the universities...
...confusion will probably end next year, when Congress is expected to vote on a government-wide patent policy...
Unfortunately, the man most interested in patent legislation is Sen. Russell Long (D.-La.), Senate majority whip, who doesn't believe the professors necessarily have any rights. The professors may make the discoveries, but the people are paying for them, Long argues. Since the discoveries are public property, he says, federal agencies, not professors, should decide what is done with them. Left on their own, the agencies undoubtedly would, as they do now, leave many of the professors out in the cold...
...that's just the point. Major advances in applied research are rare at Harvard. The men who make them are often exceptional researchers, such as Carroll Williams, professor of Biology, currently involved in a patent fight. They are often exceptional discoveries, such as Williams' hormone insecticide. It's in Harvard's interest to encourage them...
...University's present policy supposedly does. Unless his discovery is in the fields of public health or therapy, Harvard permits a professor to patent it and make every cent he can from...