Having just read the Kauffman Foundation report, I can only wonder why I didn’t think of such wonderful ideas as “Internet-based approaches” to match those with ideas with those want to implement them (how groundbreaking); or “Faculty Loyalty” in which all IP rights reside with the academics and that when they are rich and successful from commercialising their work, they will donate back to the university. Seriously.

Honestly, I find it amazing that this paper was allowed to be published. These proposals are woefully simplistic and massively inadequate for dealing with the complexities involved in the translation of research.

Dr Hammock’s comments do not reflect the reality of how we do this job.

‘…stifling research because they focus on generating revenue rather than promoting faster and wider adoption of technology breakthroughs.’ Just how do TTOs stifle research exactly? I’ve never told a researcher what to do; I merely seek to exploit what they have already done. As for revenue generation, what exactly is wrong with making money? And, why is revenue generation mutually exclusive to wide adoption? If everyone starts buying our licenced technology, we get adoption AND revenue.

‘…they overlook important early stage technology from young faculty while searching for ‘home run’ technologies from established investigators.’ Young faculty are often the best source of commercially viable IP. We’ve done several deals with IP from pre-professor level faculty; we’ll happily deal with undergrads if the IP is there. I couldn’t care less where they are on the career ladder, all I care about is the commercial potential. Why would I deliberately ignore a large cohort of great inventors? Why?

‘…There is often a degree of arrogance among TTOs, resulting in hesitancy to solicit advice on establishing the value of a technology.’ This is a bit bizarre. Why would I want to incur that cost of filing a provisional *without* soliciting advice? The first thing we do with any idea is find someone in our network of advisers who can give us a third party viewpoint. We use searching agencies, refer to market reports and call as many people as we can find. A TTO that operates without consulting the market before shelling out on a patent deserves to be shut down.

‘…urging universities to move from what the Foundation views as a short-term profit model to a volume model where many technologies are patented at low cost and licensed rapidly.’ That IS a short term profit model. Just how does Dr Hammock propose we fund this patent avalanche, and where are these licencees?

Congrats to David Schwartz for taking up the cudgels on behalf of tech transfer professionals. I’m fed up with comments from industries that just want to rape university innovations without paying.

Having worked in the world of hi-tech start-ups where someone’s brilliant idea was being taken through the ‘brainwave to product’ route, I would suggest that the criticisms of TTOs are missing some key points about the bigger picture of commercialisation.

The TTOs industry is in its infancy and must be allowed to feel its way and make the odd mistake. The big bad commercial world has been getting it wrong for decades and, for every one bright idea that has made it to a commercially viable product, many have failed, not because of lack of market or skills on the part of designers but for the simple fact of lack of funding. More worrying is that there is evidence to suggest that some products do not make it because they are actively blocked by funders who want to protect their existing investments in other areas. If they allow product B to be developed then it will compete with product A and they will not get the return on investment on product A they hoped for. Add a bit of collusion between VCs and other investors and it soon means that however brilliant product B is, it will not get off the starting blocks and the world may well be poorer for it.

Back to TTOs – these are people who are by nature expected to be a knowledgeable in a wide area with both commercial and academic “savvy”, the ability to understand a complex idea an its potential applications, wise in the ways of patents, licensing and legal aspects, marketing gurus, fundraising experts etc. In short we require them to be the equivalent of CEO of a start-up for each idea which they pursue towards commercialisation. Since most CEOs I know are flat out trying to get one single idea to commercial product, perhaps the world is just expecting too much?

New approaches to intellectual property protection and licensing are popping up all over these days. There are auctions, licensing intermediaries, and early stage investment organizations that are changing the way the game is played. Drawing on these groups, as well as on advisory boards made up of experienced industry personnel, university tech transfer will continue to become more productive.

However, it appears there will be on-going challenges in educating inventors with regard to the costs of keeping an idea alive. Along those lines, I am wondering what this suggested “high volume, low cost” patent process mentioned in Dr. Hammock’s speech might be? And what, exactly, would be recommended to have this lead to “rapid licensing?” Once again, I am afraid, someone is suggesting mystery solutions that we all wish we had, but that have not yet come across in the real world. However, if someone does know what these speedy, cheap methods are, beyond filing provisionals and looking for interest based on those, please forward this information to all of us!