Bayh-Dole Act results. Source: Speedsprint.com

Bayh-Dole Act for intellectual property licensing designed to stimulate economic growth under attack

By Lita Nelsen

Lita Nelson. Source: LinkedIn

When I was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology decades ago, Cambridge’s Kendall Square was a grubby, run-down warehouse district. Today, it’s known as the most innovative square mile on the planet.

The secret? The Bayh-Dole Act, or Trademark Law Amendments Act, a landmark piece of legislation passed in 1980 that allowed universities to keep the patents to any inventions they made. That meant that they could license these inventions to private companies, who would turn the new scientific knowledge into innovative products.

That one forward-looking law attracted hundreds of biotechnology companies to MIT’s backyard, helping to breathe new life into Kendall Square and revitalize Massachusetts’s economy. Cambridge, Mass., of course, wasn’t the only university community to thrive because of Bayh-Dole. Cities and towns surrounding hundreds of universities have prospered as a result.

Nevertheless, Bayh-Dole has recently come under attack by lawmakers who want to use the law as a mechanism to cut drug prices. Their goal of lowering drug prices for patients is admirable — but twisting the Bayh-Dole Act to use it as a price control tool would have disastrous consequences for America’s research universities, as well as U.S. consumers and patients, who will suffer as a result of any reduced investment in life sciences.

In a recent letter in support of this idea, lawmakers urged administrators at the Department of Health and Human Services to use Bayh-Dole to “march-in” and take away drug companies’ licenses to certain patents that stemmed from taxpayer-funded research. HHS could then relicense those drug patents to generic pharmaceutical companies that could create cheaper versions of the medicines.

That’s certain to make biotech investors and companies less willing to invest in university research. Why would any firm — small companies and startups especially — assume the risk of developing a new drug when the government could seize its patent rights if federal officials don’t like the price of the final product?

Lawmakers would do well to remember that Bayh-Dole fundamentally changed the research and development landscape in the United States for the better.

I should know. As the head of MIT’s Technology Licensing Office for almost three decades, I helped license thousands of technologies to the innovative companies that sprung up around campus.

Before Bayh-Dole, the government retained patent rights to any academic discoveries supported by public money and licensed just 5% of the nearly 30,000 patents it held. Consequently, while this pre-Bayh-Dole system worked to advance basic research, it failed to turn scientific advancement into usable, commercial products.

Bayh-Dole shifted that paradigm, providing a mechanism to translate academic research results into new technologies ranging from high-definition television and the page-rank algorithm that would become Google to FluMist® and CAR T-cell therapy. Companies exploiting Bayh-Dole inventions have contributed up to $1.9 trillion to the U.S. gross industrial output and up to $1 trillion to our GDP. They have supported nearly 6.5 million jobs and led to the creation of over 15,000 startups.

The bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act, as its authors clearly stated, was never meant to be a price-control mechanism. The law outlines four clearly defined instances where its march-in provisions can be exercised. Controlling prices is not one of them.

What today’s lawmakers don’t seem to grasp is that the unintended consequences of meddling with Bayh-Dole will outweigh any wished-for benefits.

Lita Nelsen retired from the Technology Licensing Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after 30 years in the office. She was director of MIT TLO from 1992 to 2016. This op-ed originally ran in the Boston Herald.

By Timothy Lee

Several Members of Congress recently introduced legislation that aims to protect consumer data from misuse and abuse.

Unfortunately, the “American Data Privacy and Protection Act” (H.R.1852) contains significant defects unrelated to much-needed privacy protections for consumers or businesses.

Instead of simply safeguarding the personal information of ordinary Americans and simplifying legal obligations for companies, the bill would uncork a torrent of counterproductive lawsuits that would damage job creators and enrich trial lawyers.

There’s no question America needs a federal data privacy law. Due to the lack of a uniform federal standard, data privacy is governed by a patchwork of state laws and regulations. Consequently, American firms may needlessly spend up to $1 trillion over the next decade trying to navigate that legal maze and comply with the varying statutes — with $200 billion of that burden falling on small businesses.

A single, streamlined federal law would help reassure consumers that their data remains secure, regardless of where they live or where a company is located.

The legislation under consideration, however, contains two massive flaws that would unleash endless class-action litigation over minor or technical violations, allowing lawyers to reap millions while class members receive just a few dollars or, in many cases, nothing at all.

First, the proposed legislation includes a ban on class-action waivers in arbitration agreements, which could prohibit companies and consumers from having their disputes resolved on an individual basis. Arbitration offers a more efficient alternative to court litigation, relying on independent third parties to mediate conflicts. Essentially, the parties in dispute take their issues to a neutral party, present their respective arguments, and agree to abide by whatever the arbitrator decides.

Although trial lawyers are understandably loath to admit it, arbitration is generally better for consumers than traditional court litigation. It is typically cheaper, quicker, and less complicated than formal lawsuits. Consumers prevail 41% of the time in arbitration, versus 29% in court. Additionally, awards in cases decided by arbitration actually exceed courtroom awards — $80,000 versus $71,000, respectively. Arbitration cases are also resolved 27% more quickly on average, and there’s often no need to involve — and thus pay — a lawyer.

However, those benefits present big problems from trial lawyers’ perspective. They prefer huge, class-action lawsuits that, according to a 2015 study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, net consumers an average of $32 while lawyers earn close to $1 million.

The bill’s second massive flaw would create a “private right of action,” which allows individuals to sue to enforce the law no matter how trivial the violation. When numerous individuals can file the same complaint, plaintiffs’ lawyers try to lump them all together in one big lawsuit against a business — even if most of the people in the class are unaware they’re part of a lawsuit. It’s perfectly clear how that benefits lawyers. But it’s uncertain how it would advance consumer privacy and data protection.

Data security and privacy remain serious, complex issues, and Congress should absolutely pursue a uniform national policy. People who steal our data, and businesses that fail to adequately protect it, must be held accountable.

As currently drafted, however, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act contains unacceptable provisions that would enable rich trial lawyers to get even richer while delivering scant benefits to ordinary Americans whose interests they claim to represent.

Timothy H. Lee is senior vice president of legal and public affairs at the Center for Individual Freedom. This piece was originally published by Inside Sources.

Editor:

Please think about for whom you will vote in the upcoming local Antioch elections. Your votes should not just be to help place someone in elected public office. Those whom we choose should serve the public at large, honestly and with integrity. Your vote is precious and worth more than just a pat on the back, only to be forgotten and ignored thereafter.

I have been a resident here in East County for 70 years now, the past 47 plus years residing in Antioch. I have been involved in voting and its related political matters since I was 18 years old. I consider my participation in my community to be very important and with the hope that our elected leaders serve all the public equally and without favoring mostly the special interests over all of us.

I really care about what happens in our community and want our elected leaders to at least have half a brain and not be taken in by those who put aside the public for their own interests and gains. I want independent thinkers and doers elected, not some robots manipulated by evil doers.

In the governing of the City of Antioch, of late, we have been promised much by sweet-talking and smiling individuals who were elected to represent us. Some of their decision making has had some acceptable results, but there have been a number of their decisions that have placed our community into a downwards spiral with a number of consequences yet to be fully exacted upon us.

For well over ten years our public safety has been compromised to the extent that many in our city no longer are safe. Instead of spending our budget monies to at least continue and provide for the past, safer Antioch we have had our available public monies budgeted and spent on things that negatively impact our quality of life here. We are ignored when we demand more sworn police manpower and resources, which were promised but not even maintained. Instead, some of our elected officials seem to enjoy making our city less safe, take away from our business community with nonsense, and we are exposed repeatedly with irrational decision making by our city council majority.

When Lamar Thorpe initially ran for a city council seat myself and many others voted for him, giving him the opportunity to represent us as he had campaign-promised. Lo and behold he has gone on a downward spiral since then and even gotten worse once elected as the city’s mayor. Then it became clear that the elected Monica Wilson, too joined him in her votes many a time and has progressed to the point that what Lamar Thorpe wants and votes for she is there voting with him without question.

Then Tamisha Walker was shortly thereafter elected to the city council and she too seems to have similarly gone along with the other two in most of her positions and votes. The other two elected council members therefore have been relegated to fighting against the three’s lock-step voting patterns and for the most part rendered by the three others just figureheads.

The mayor, Lamar Thorpe, Monica Wilson and Tamisha Walker, it appears, have an undisclosed questionable agenda that may even be personal in nature. This lock-step alliance cannot continue. Antioch has been made the laughingstock and butt of many jokes by so many within and outside of Antioch. Lamar and his backup singers, the two ‘Thorpettes’ (Monica Wilson and Tamisha Walker) do not at times, in special interests matters especially, even abide by certain of the city’s long-established ordinances and meaningful ways, to the public’s detriment. This they have most recently again done, without explanation. It seems that whatever Thorpe sings his two ‘Thorpettes’ follow.

Friends and supporters, in this current election cycle, please vote for Mary Rocha for the Antioch School Board, Diane Gibson-Gray for Antioch City Council representing District #1, and Lori Ogorchock for Antioch City Council representing District #4. Sure, there are other candidates running but it is my opinion and recommendation to you as to whom to choose that would serve you better than the others.

Ralph A. Hernandez

Former Antioch City Council Member

Antioch

Editor:

There is a social media page called “You know you’re from Antioch” on Facebook….great postings that speak about the wonders of a small community that almost reads like a Norman Rockwell story.

I moved to Antioch in 2008 engulfing myself into the local activities to help my community to be better, safer and be the ideal city to raise a family. If it was voicing my thoughts at City Council, Police Commission or School Board meetings, I tried to bring me and my neighbors’ voices to the table. Always acknowledged by elected or appointed leadership, the actions that was to follow was from far too few. I was fortunate to live in a neighborhood where everyone knew each other, and we were more than neighbors; we were family.

Over the years, the political forum became clearer and the levels of back door dealings more transparent. Things moved and people stood silent as it appears this was the norm. As we entered into 2016, the silo’s that existed in silence in Antioch grew even larger and more visible. It was the change that many cities were facing, but never one would think it would be as large as it was in Antioch. The generation and culture change that occurred was beyond what the city could manage. The implementation of programs yielded minimum to no results. The actions of leaders were far from being implemented, vision was clouded, and words had no substance. This became more evident as we entered the COVID era and government had to continue, but it seemed that city leaders were more divided than ever. Past political actions came to the forefront and voters led the way on who they wanted to have govern them. It was a change that now created more separatism on many scales.

Many look at the “Now” and do not realize that those elected must undo the actions of previous administrations. The discoveries or like they say, hidden skeletons, came forward and one needs to realize that they need to own or manage it if change cannot happen. Most importantly, have professional courtesy and acknowledge each other as tensions were high. It is fine to agree to disagree but do so with respect and consideration. But we are not seeing this as special interests and idealism have taken charge.

The voters of Antioch have the ability to bring a change this November. The Antioch of the old has perished and the new Antioch is having true growing pains. The key question is, who can bring your voice to the table and help Antioch to be the city of opportunity?

The community literally has the ability to vote out candidates who have been in office that really have not been able to reach across the aisle to bridge their differences. They allow and encourage the separatism of the community to exist. You need to ask those who have been in office – “What have you done to better Antioch?”

Those that are trying to be reelected will speak more about the division rather than responding to the question. If you look at existing candidates’ endeavors, you will find that many were not completed or never got off the ground. Basically, all talk and no action. And sadly, the backdoor deals continue to present themselves as one candidate posted signs that they had APOA support prior to the official APOA announcement or candidates you never see in your neighborhood, now appear and provide excuses on why they need your vote.

New candidates bring a fresh and eager way and maybe, just maybe, they can work with their peers in order to have the new Antioch be on the pathway of a community that you want to have. When looking at the candidates, I see very familiar faces as well as a new one. The realization is that many of these candidates all speak to the issues that concern many (e.g., crime, schools, safety and blight). But ask yourself, “Who has the experience – the hands-on experience?”

Review the candidates and don’t pick someone because they are your friend, or someone told you to. Examine who they are and if they have the experience necessary to really make a change.  Being on a committee or member of local community groups do not outweigh having hands-on experience. You wouldn’t take your car to be fixed by a person who sells homes or provides therapy, would you?

As a former resident of Antioch until a couple months ago, I cannot provide an opinion on who would best represent you. But I hope this read brings some thoughts into mind that your vote in this election will shift the momentum of the city and bring it forward; or take it backwards. Remember, think what is important for you and don’t allow special interests, family, friends or outside support groups decide for you. This is not about being a Democrat, Republican, liberal, Green, etc.… this is about aligning your vote to the candidate that best represents the values you have and what you want for your family or community. What is most important, is they have the experience necessary to make it so.

In heart,

Gil Murillo

Former Antioch resident of Council District 4 and 2016 candidate for mayor

Dear Editor:

The community forum’s post says the purpose of the meeting is to have a conversation with the chief and officers in our department. Why is Torres-Walker able to postpone it? (See related article)

I want to talk to the chief not council members or anyone other than police. The council has their chance every council meeting or if members of the council would answer their emails other than Lori. I have never had an email returned and they have all been polite, with the exception of one email conversation with Lamar and he did not answer my question.

Thanks,
Norm Machado

Antioch

Antioch City Council District 4 candidate Sandra White, Mayor Lamar Thorpe and incumbent District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson.

“Shocked” that incumbent Wilson calls effort a “witch hunt”

Dear Citizens of Antioch: 

It’s no secret that the political climate in Antioch has been a contentious battleground for the last several years. We’ve had a council that has had little collaboration on the most significant issues plaguing our city, which has experienced a sharp decline in the quality of life for our residents. When I pulled papers to run for the District 4 seat election in November, I intended to focus on my race and not allow outside distractions. The negativity that has surrounded our council, especially our mayor, is something I thought I could address once I am elected to serve. 

My plans sharply shifted on Friday. I participated in a roundtable discussion with my opponents also running for election in District 4, and we were all asked the same questions. The moderator asked each member on the panel if we thought the mayor should resign, considering the recent settlement involving the Los Medanos Community Healthcare District. Whereas two women accused Lamar Thorpe of sexual harassment, unwanted sexual advances, creating a hostile work environment, and other unlawful actions, I approached this question from an HR perspective, as I handle similar cases almost daily in my career as Vice President of Human Resources and understand the analysis that takes place before it’s decided if a claim is settled or brought to trial. My response was a resounding yes. I firmly believe these women are telling the truth and that the county Board of Supervisors would not have settled if there had been no compelling evidence of Lamar Thorpe’s guilt. 

What shocked me during this discussion was my opponent’s response. When posed the same question, Councilwoman Monica Wilson stated the call for the mayor to resign is a witch-hunt, and the investigation is not completed. These types of accusations should not be made against the mayor. In an earlier statement submitted to the East Bay Times, Wilson accused fellow council members of being racist when they called for the mayor to resign. I found her responses to be alarming. Councilwoman Wilson has built both her political and personal careers on advocating for women that have been sexually exploited. How can she turn her back on these two women to try and save a political ally? How can she attempt to incite racism and further divide our city to protect Lamar Thorpe? Will she now accuse me, a fellow woman of color, of racism in calling for his resignation? 

The incident is not about race, personal allegiances or political parties. It’s about behavior and ethics. We cannot tolerate the conduct of our mayor, or his allies that continue to create division in our community. Mayor Thorpe needs to resign and allow our city to move forward and heal from the trauma he has inflicted.   

When District 4 residents vote in the November election, I hope they choose integrity over alliances and old loyalties and help bring The Change That We Need! 

Sandra White 

Candidate, Antioch City Council District 4 

Campaign photo of Antioch District 1 city council candidate Diane Gibson-Gray and Mayor Lamar Thorpe.

“Enough is enough and Antioch deserves better!”

Dear Editor: 

Lamar Thorpe initially stood out in Antioch politics using his relative youth and ethnicity and he used those distinctions to brand himself as a forward-thinking progressive candidate. He won his race.

But recently he has found himself in trouble and even though he beat the recall movement, he was arrested for drunk driving by the CHP. That issue is still pending. Now he is being asked to resign as Mayor of Antioch by two of his fellow council members, as the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to settle claims against Thorpe by two former female employees for $350,000 from when he was executive director of the now-defunct Los Medanos Community Healthcare District.  

As it happens, this is not a new issue for Mr. Thorpe. In 2007, Student Judicial Services found Student Association President Lamar Thorpe guilty of disorderly conduct for “lewd and indecent behavior,” and not guilty of sexual harassment and alcohol charges. It is evident that Thorpe’s racist and sexist behavior is not a one-time event. It is a pattern of behavior that has continued throughout his life. This speaks to his character and shows that he is not fit to represent the good citizens of Antioch in any capacity. 

Perhaps more concerning for the city of Antioch is there has been no compassion towards these two young women expressed by Mayor Thorpe’s city council voting bloc, Tamisha Torres Walker and Monica Wilson. 

Lamar Thorpe has a reputation regarding people he sees as political enemies. He has a reputation for swift retribution and holding long grudges and has no compunction at all about using the racist term “Karen” when referring to women whom he views as his enemies. In fact, he used a racist term to promote his recent recall fundraiser roast by calling proponents “Karens”. That was not the first, nor last time we have seen him use that term with a big smile on his face. 

His use of offensive language and vulgar gestures towards those he terms his ‘enemies’ create an environment of disrespect and fear. 

In conclusion, if your impression of Antioch politics has taken a bruising over the last two years, it is because you are paying attention. Now is the time to have your voice heard; ask Thorpe to resign and Torres Walker and Wilson to do the same.  

Enough is enough and Antioch deserves better! 

Diane Gibson-Gray 

Antioch

By Sally C. Pipes

A new proposal in Congress aims to allow victims of sexual misconduct to go public with their stories.

That goal is admirable. But as written, the legislation — the Speak Out Act HR8227, which was introduced in both the House and Senate in recent weeks — will force victims to go public, even if they don’t want to.

That’s hardly pro-women. Many victims prefer to settle claims out-of-court to avoid both the costs and inevitable publicity of litigation.

Supporters claim the measure targets pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. These agreements are incredibly common when someone begins a new job – more than one in three U.S. workers are bound by such agreements. Supporters of the Speak Out Act applaud the bill for banning the enforcement of such agreements in instances of sexual harassment or assault.

Dig into the details of the Speak Out Act, however, and it becomes clear that the bill is written much more broadly than that.

The legislation defines the term “pre-dispute” as any agreement that is signed before a lawsuit is filed — even if that agreement is reached weeks, months, or years after the incident occurred.

That’s a problem because many out-of-court settlements involve their own non-disclosure agreements. The bill would effectively invalidate these NDAs. Only agreements reached after litigation has commenced — where the claims are publicized in court, complete with lawyers — could have enforceable NDAs.

In other words, the bill would make it virtually impossible for employees to settle sexual harassment or assault claims out of court. That hardly counts as progress — unless you’re a trial lawyer.

For one, lawsuits tend to be an expensive undertaking. Despite significant litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, they don’t always yield justice for the average person.

That’s not to mention the personal costs that litigation can exact on claimants. Many victims of sexual assault or harassment would rather not make their claims public — which a lawsuit requires. More than that, the discovery process in these lawsuits can be stressful — and may reveal embarrassing personal details the claimant would rather keep private.

For all these reasons, many victims of workplace sexual misconduct prefer to leave the courts out of it — and instead reach a private settlement with their employer. Under the Speak Out Act, this sort of approach will no longer be available. Any worker who wishes to resolve their claim for workplace sexual misconduct will need to hire a lawyer, file a lawsuit, and endure the uncertainties, stresses, and costs of litigation.

Add all these costs up, and it’s possible that the Speak Out Act could result in more women remaining silent.

Even if the Speak Out Act weren’t so poorly written, it would remain a troubling instance of congressional overreach. It’s far from clear that lawmakers have the authority to nullify private agreements signed between workers and their employers, even if their intent is to help victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Sexual assault and harassment victims deserve every opportunity to seek justice. But the Speak Out Act doesn’t advance that goal.

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is False Premise, False Promise: The Disastrous Reality of Medicare for All (Encounter 2020). Follow her on Twitter @sallypipes. This piece originally appeared in Newsmax.