Differences Between House and Senate Version of Technology Transfer Bills

Item

Other Media

s-leg_174_012_023_tr.txt

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

2 Pages

File Name (Dublin Core)

s-leg_174_012_023

Title (Dublin Core)

Differences Between House and Senate Version of Technology Transfer Bills

Description (Dublin Core)

List of categories of major and minor differences between the House and Senate version of the Technology Transfer bills. Additionally, contains a handwritten note about the Office of Management and Budget's objections to the bill and the Department of Defense's objections to the bill.

Date (Dublin Core)

1986

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1986

Congress (Dublin Core)

99th (1985-1987)

Topics (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueTechnology transfer

See all items with this valuePatent laws and legislation

Policy Area (Curation)

Science, Technology, Communications

Commerce

Creator (Dublin Core)

Unknown

Record Type (Dublin Core)

internal notes

Names (Dublin Core)

See all items with this valueUnited States. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986

See all items with this valueDole, Robert J., 1923-2021

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=23&q=

Physical Location (Dublin Core)

Collection 003, Box 174, Folder 12

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Senate Papers-Legislative Relations, 1969-1996

Full Text (Extract Text)

Major Differences
I. Royalty sharing
II. FLC
A. Funding level
B. Demonstration projects
C. Location
III. Appropriations
IV. Employee Activities
V. Agency plan
Other Differences
I. Organization
II. Senate amendments
A. Dole
B. Pell
C. Bumpers
D. Leahy
E. Domenici (remainder)
F. Gorton
III. Definition of Federal labs, cooperative research
IV. Reporting requirements
V. Professional mission statement
VI. Other
A. Technical Volunteer Program as example of FLC program (Senate)
B. "All" information should be transferred (House)
c. Regional/state/local FLC participation (Senate)
D. Licensing joint inventions (House)
E. Advance waivers (House)
F. Patent act conforming amendment
(second page, all handwritten)
OMB (Office of Management and Budget) reasons against:
(1). Royalty Sharing
(2). Existence of Fed'l Lab. Consortium.
(3). Renaming Agency.
Probably not objections at a high level.
House: DoD (Department of Defense) objection that hard to pick one invention.
Patent law would control who investors are.
Problem is most labs do not license anything so govt (government) loses.

Major Differences
I. Royalty sharing
II. FLC
A. Funding level
B. Demonstration projects
C. Location
III. Appropriations
IV. Employee Activities
V. Agency plan
Other Differences
I. Organization
II. Senate amendments
A. Dole
B. Pell
C. Bumpers
D. Leahy
E. Domenici (remainder)
F. Gorton
III. Definition of Federal labs, cooperative research
IV. Reporting requirements
V. Professional mission statement
VI. Other
A. Technical Volunteer Program as example of FLC program (Senate)
B. "All" information should be transferred (House)
c. Regional/state/local FLC participation (Senate)
D. Licensing joint inventions (House)
E. Advance waivers (House)
F. Patent act conforming amendment
(second page, all handwritten)
OMB (Office of Management and Budget) reasons against:
(1). Royalty Sharing
(2). Existence of Fed'l Lab. Consortium.
(3). Renaming Agency.
Probably not objections at a high level.
House: DoD (Department of Defense) objection that hard to pick one invention.
Patent law would control who investors are.
Problem is most labs do not license anything so govt (government) loses.