~Iri,n - Bayhdolecentral

Editor's Preface
Twenty-five years ago, Congress enacted the Patent and Trademark Law
Amendments of 1980 (Public Law 96-517). Further amendments were
included in Public Law 98-620 that was enacted into law in 1984.
Commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act in recognition of its two lead
sponsors in the U.S. Senate, Birch Bayh (D-IN) and Bob Dole (R-KS), this
act has been hailed as "possibly the most inspired piece of legislation to be
enacted in America over the past half-century.'" The Bayh-Dole Act has
been credited with unlocking federally funded inventions and discoveries
and providing platform technologies that have fueled our nation's economic
growth.
In this issue of the AUTMJournal, our contributing authors reflect on
the Bayh-Dole Act twenty-five years after its enactment. Those of us in the
university technology transfer community are well-aware of the impact that
the Bayh-Dole Act has had upon the growth and development of our
profession. The articles that follow will be of interest to our readership as
the authors discuss the Bayh-Dole Act from global, political, and legal
perspectives.
The first article, "Technology Innovation and Development: Using the
Bayh-Dole Act to Advance Development Goals," was written by Pamela
Passman, JD, Betsy Brady, !D. and Bill Guidera, JD, all of whom are
members of Microsoft Corp.'s Legal and Corporate Affairs Department.
These authors state that the "Bayh-Dole Act has been remarkably successful
in promoting the transfer of technology from federally funded research labs
to the private sector," and they propose that the United States should under­
take initiatives to assist developing countries in utilizing components of our
nation's technology transfer system.
Passman and her co-authors provide a brief but thorough description of
our nation's experience of the Bayh-Dole Act and its effects on technology
transfer and economic growth. They then describe technology development
policies in other nations and provide examples of the adoption by other
developed nations of policies similar to those contained in the language of
the Bayh-Dole Act. The authors express curiosity as to why more attention
has not been paid to Bayh-Dole-type policies in developing economies and
vii