Absolutely! Universities claim patent rights for things invented by student's because "their" (university) equipment helped build the inventions. If the taxpayers are buying the equipment for the universities, then it is only logical that the taxpayers own part of any patents created with our equipment. Good for the goose; good for the gander.
Yes. The USA, and the whole world, would benefit greatly from programs designed to promote and enhance innovation of all sorts. But, the cutthroat corporate establishment that has infested our society stands in the way of innovation- unless they can claim ownership over the intellectual property for themselves.
Breaking the stranglehold that universities hold over the intellectual property rights of their students, and partners is a very welcome step in the right direction.
So how would this play out? As tax revenue? As tax rebates for us? As stimulus checks? I'm not sure I get this. If they're not paying taxes right now, and are in fact getting our tax dollars, this is just a way to claw back some of our tax dollars that we gave them in the first place? If we get rid of income tax, or all taxes, in favor of tariff revenue, would we continue to give universities grants from our tariff revenue and then pass on the government's cut of the patents to us?
Somoene help me get this.
ChatGPT to the rescue:
🔑 How It Would Work in Theory
Howard Lutnick’s idea is essentially to tie taxpayer funding of university research to partial public ownership of resulting patents. Right now:
-Universities get billions in federal grants (NIH, NSF, DoD, etc.).
-When they invent something (a drug, chip design, AI model), the university owns the patent under the Bayh–Dole Act (1980).
-The university can then license that patent to companies and keep the royalties, with only indirect public benefit.
Under Lutnick’s model:
-Government co-ownership: If taxpayers funded the research, the U.S. government would own a portion of the patents.
-Revenue stream: When universities license those patents to private industry, the government would receive a cut of the royalties or licensing fees.
⸻
💵 Where the Money Could Go
If the government collects patent revenue, it could be directed in several ways:
-General Treasury Revenue – most likely scenario. It would offset federal spending, like corporate taxes do now.
-Targeted Programs – e.g. funding more research, reducing deficits, or subsidizing public health.
-Direct Rebates / Stimulus – less likely unless lawmakers deliberately design a “taxpayer dividend” program.
-Tax Reductions – in theory, higher patent revenue could reduce pressure on income or payroll taxes, but only if Congress earmarks it that way.
So unless specifically legislated, this would not show up as a stimulus check or rebate. It would be like any other government revenue stream.
⸻
🏛 If Taxes Were Replaced by Tariffs
You asked: “If we got rid of income tax and funded the government with tariffs, would we still give universities grants, and would the patent revenue pass back to us?”
-Yes, universities could still get federal funding — the funding source doesn’t matter (tariffs vs income tax).
-Patent revenue would still belong to the government. If tariff revenue replaced income taxes, the government might use patent royalties to either:
-Lower tariffs,
-Fund federal programs,
-Or (if designed that way) distribute surplus back to citizens.
But unless a dividend mechanism is written into law (like Alaska’s oil dividend), taxpayers would not automatically get a check.
⸻
⚖️ The Core Idea
It’s not a rebate system for individuals. It’s a claw-back of public investment so the government (and by extension taxpayers) aren’t shut out of profits created with their own money.
Right now, pharma and tech companies make billions commercializing university patents while taxpayers only see indirect benefits. Lutnick’s idea is to let the public share in the upside.
There is another way it could play out also. Ai seems to have missed that option.
Taxpayer funded public entities (like universities) could be forbidden from owning intellectual property rights altogether. You can be a public institution, or private, but not both. Pick one.
I'm sure that option would twist the establishments panties in knot. 😃
In my case, the patent is awarded to the inventor, but is assigned to the employer. It would be part of the employment contract. Unfortunately, the employer can be negligent about exploiting the patent, letting it lapse. And, upon reflection, I don't recall ever being provided a copy of the employment contract. Therefore, when it comes to inventions I have submitted for review, the ones which were rejected I regard as my intellectual property, since I created them off company time.
Absolutely! Universities claim patent rights for things invented by student's because "their" (university) equipment helped build the inventions. If the taxpayers are buying the equipment for the universities, then it is only logical that the taxpayers own part of any patents created with our equipment. Good for the goose; good for the gander.
What about incentives for the students? How about an even split between all parties. Wouldn’t that unleash real enthusiasm and encouragement?
Yes. The USA, and the whole world, would benefit greatly from programs designed to promote and enhance innovation of all sorts. But, the cutthroat corporate establishment that has infested our society stands in the way of innovation- unless they can claim ownership over the intellectual property for themselves.
Breaking the stranglehold that universities hold over the intellectual property rights of their students, and partners is a very welcome step in the right direction.
Totally agree.
Amen.
So how would this play out? As tax revenue? As tax rebates for us? As stimulus checks? I'm not sure I get this. If they're not paying taxes right now, and are in fact getting our tax dollars, this is just a way to claw back some of our tax dollars that we gave them in the first place? If we get rid of income tax, or all taxes, in favor of tariff revenue, would we continue to give universities grants from our tariff revenue and then pass on the government's cut of the patents to us?
Somoene help me get this.
ChatGPT to the rescue:
🔑 How It Would Work in Theory
Howard Lutnick’s idea is essentially to tie taxpayer funding of university research to partial public ownership of resulting patents. Right now:
-Universities get billions in federal grants (NIH, NSF, DoD, etc.).
-When they invent something (a drug, chip design, AI model), the university owns the patent under the Bayh–Dole Act (1980).
-The university can then license that patent to companies and keep the royalties, with only indirect public benefit.
Under Lutnick’s model:
-Government co-ownership: If taxpayers funded the research, the U.S. government would own a portion of the patents.
-Revenue stream: When universities license those patents to private industry, the government would receive a cut of the royalties or licensing fees.
⸻
💵 Where the Money Could Go
If the government collects patent revenue, it could be directed in several ways:
-General Treasury Revenue – most likely scenario. It would offset federal spending, like corporate taxes do now.
-Targeted Programs – e.g. funding more research, reducing deficits, or subsidizing public health.
-Direct Rebates / Stimulus – less likely unless lawmakers deliberately design a “taxpayer dividend” program.
-Tax Reductions – in theory, higher patent revenue could reduce pressure on income or payroll taxes, but only if Congress earmarks it that way.
So unless specifically legislated, this would not show up as a stimulus check or rebate. It would be like any other government revenue stream.
⸻
🏛 If Taxes Were Replaced by Tariffs
You asked: “If we got rid of income tax and funded the government with tariffs, would we still give universities grants, and would the patent revenue pass back to us?”
-Yes, universities could still get federal funding — the funding source doesn’t matter (tariffs vs income tax).
-Patent revenue would still belong to the government. If tariff revenue replaced income taxes, the government might use patent royalties to either:
-Lower tariffs,
-Fund federal programs,
-Or (if designed that way) distribute surplus back to citizens.
But unless a dividend mechanism is written into law (like Alaska’s oil dividend), taxpayers would not automatically get a check.
⸻
⚖️ The Core Idea
It’s not a rebate system for individuals. It’s a claw-back of public investment so the government (and by extension taxpayers) aren’t shut out of profits created with their own money.
Right now, pharma and tech companies make billions commercializing university patents while taxpayers only see indirect benefits. Lutnick’s idea is to let the public share in the upside.
There is another way it could play out also. Ai seems to have missed that option.
Taxpayer funded public entities (like universities) could be forbidden from owning intellectual property rights altogether. You can be a public institution, or private, but not both. Pick one.
I'm sure that option would twist the establishments panties in knot. 😃
You. I like you.
Same goes with working for a corporation. You find a new way to do something, it's their patent. Even if you didn't use their equipment.
In my case, the patent is awarded to the inventor, but is assigned to the employer. It would be part of the employment contract. Unfortunately, the employer can be negligent about exploiting the patent, letting it lapse. And, upon reflection, I don't recall ever being provided a copy of the employment contract. Therefore, when it comes to inventions I have submitted for review, the ones which were rejected I regard as my intellectual property, since I created them off company time.