At least one ISU professor believes that the university’s policy of seeking to increase the number of patents awarded at Iowa State does not necessarily serve the public good.

Tony Smith, chairman and professor of philosophy and religious studies, said he objects to a goal set by the university in the current draft of its 2005-10 strategic plan calling for Iowa State to “lead the nation in the number of new patents awarded, licenses issued and successful business ventures initiated.”

“My problem is with the idea that extending intellectual property rights is always the best thing to further technical advance and always the best thing for society,” Smith said.

James Bloedel, vice provost for research administration, said licensing intellectual properties and obtaining patents is not a new emphasis at Iowa State, but is consistent with Iowa State’s “Science with Practice” motto.

“[The increasing patents] component of the strategic plan is a statement of Iowa State’s commitment to transferring the technology that is generated in the university to the public at large for the benefit of economic development in the state,” Bloedel said.

Smith said the areas in which researchers can get patents has broadened in the past 20 years, which hurts smaller companies.

“If you extend patent rights, then you’re giving a benefit to the large corporations because they can afford to hire armies of patent lawyers to defend their patents, extend their patents aggressively and go after anybody who might remotely be infringing them,” he said.

A lot of technical advances come from small companies, but they cannot afford to license patents or enter into cross-licensing agreements, he said. Underdeveloped countries face a similar problem, because approximately 97 percent of all patents are given to individuals or corporations in the countries where only 20 percent of the world’s population live, Smith said.

“The United States and most industrial countries developed by taking advantage of scientific and technical knowledge as a free good,” Smith said. “What we’re doing to underdeveloped countries is we’re saying you can’t use the means that we used to become developed.”

The patent system is also unfair to Iowans, Smith said, because it asks them to pay twice for the same innovation. They pay to fund Iowa State’s research, which frequently includes research that private companies don’t want to pay for, and they pay a second time in monopoly prices charged by the company that owns or licenses the patent, he said.

Bloedel said the Iowa State University Research Foundation owns the patents for faculty research. It handles administrative aspects of obtaining a patent, including analyzing the invention to ensure similar inventions have not already been patented or licensed. If the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants a patent, royalties for licensing the technology are used to pay the expenses of management and obtaining the patent. The inventor, the college and ISURF equally share royalties from licensing, Bloedel said.

“The patent system is one of the features that motivates additional research,” Bloedel said. “One of the objectives in performing applied research is to create intellectual property that can benefit mankind and be transferred to the public for use, and that’s part of the enjoyment a faculty member receives from performing applied research.”