” … to be enacted in America over the past half-century” (The Economist)
More about Bayh-Dole here, in The New England Journal of Medicine. A very recent and very short piece arguing for needed changes to Bayh-Dole:
” … to be enacted in America over the past half-century” (The Economist)
More about Bayh-Dole here, in The New England Journal of Medicine. A very recent and very short piece arguing for needed changes to Bayh-Dole:
It is interesting to try and classify the Bayh-Dole act within the dichotomy that is described in the first essay of Rules for Growth; namely, “static” or “dynamic” efficiency legislation. The authors describe static efficiency as only maximizing the output of existing goods and products, whereas dynamic efficiency is the “maximum rate of production of new products, services, or modes of operation.” While the authors suggest that the latter is more important for maximizing economic growth. The way that Bayh-Dole at least attempted to properly align incentives for innovation seems to fall under the latter. Whether it succeeded or not is a different question obviously. Interestingly, Markel’s opinion in the posted article, that Bayh-Dole needed re-calibration in part due to the too-many-patents problem implicates another suggestion from Rules of Growth: principal # 1 that law needs to be flexible to account for new technologies and innovations.