one argument I have heard repeatedly is that patent are important to fund research (it often funds CEOs, stakeholders, advertisement, law suites, etc too), so when I read about a successful (academic) patent around cancer research, surely those millions should feed into (academic) research too. Right?
@egonw@academicchatter millions do, but that's nothing really. It could be much more if academics took a more active role.
Often, academics and even tech transfer dep. look to sell as early as possible. This makes sense in one way, as early failure rates are high, but it minimises the payout when an idea does bite.
@egonw@academicchatter most academics have entertaining war stories and/or great advice on how to game "their" peer reviewed journals.
Very few can, however, tell you when when you would be better placed to have a patent application filed, or how you might go about maximising your chance of success in this.
The basics aren't actually hard, but especially outside chemistry, it is surprisingly poorly understood.
