This section includes opinions by TECHNIS researchers, opinion leaders, and market experts.
I argue that the new historiographic approaches on the coproduction of technosciences and ‘intellectual property law’ have shown that: a. the adversarial system – in all its complexity and contingency- has a critical contribution in the construction of IPR and ‘naturalization’ of
proprietary regime; b. the emerging “intellectual property” rights regimes are industry-specific rather than applying universally to all technologies; c. patents function in forms of capital: economic but also social and cultural.
In a joint paper with Andreas Panagopoulos and Stelios Rozakis we offer evidence on how the absence of entrepreneurship shapes the goals and expectations of faculty scientists about university technology commercialization. These results stem from a two year experiment in jump-starting entrepreneurship at the Agricultural University of Athens. We find that the sincere lack of understanding of commercialization and the ensuing superfluous expectations that faculty scientists developed about its benefits, resulted in congestion at the Technology Commercialization Office, renting the tech-transfer process inefficient. Educating the faculty about entrepreneurship had limited short term results.
Faculty scientists often avoid disclosing their inventions to their university’s Technology Transfer Office (TTO), opting instead to self-license their invention. As I argue, TTO’s can achieve full disclosure by allowing faculty scientists to self-license their invention in return for some form of non-pecuniary “insurance”, just in case they fail in self-licensing their technology.
A summary of a heated debate, between academics and policy makers, on a number of contentious public policy questions in the field of biomedical patents. The debate was organised by Dr. Sideri and the Foundation for Law Justice and Society, and took place at the University of Oxford in February 2015. The workshop reflected on the following questions: Patents on DNA Sequences in Europe and the USA; Biomarker Patenting, Monopolies, and Public Health; The 100,000 Genomes Project and IP Licensing; University Licensing; Collaborative R&D, Open Science, and Open Source. Delegates proposed concrete policies that can accommodate both public health needs and the policy drive towards competitiveness in local and global markets.