The university resource allocation question (or series of questions) is very difficult, requires a systems approach, is data intensive, and merits serious attention. There is much to do, and another data point is helpful!

As to the pull of resources, that’s a more difficult question. In the abstract, and in general, it’s likely that there is some marginal resource reallocation taking place in the shadow of patents. But I think that it’s important to break out the stage of the research, the identities of the parties, the timing and character of the funding, allocation of IPRs at the back end, and so on, before passing judgment on whether this reflects a changed institutional environment. (I agree that the value equation isn’t necessary negative.) Universities have been in the regional economic development business, at least indirectly, for a very long time, and certainly since before Bayh-Dole was enacted.

Isn’t the tech transfer office involved? I suspect it must be, especially if Pitt already has some patents in this area. So there probably are lawyers involved to deal with the IP and business issues, but no legal academics.

Also, if Pitt already has patents in this area, what makes you think that those patents and (commercial prospects) have not “pulled” university resources? As I mentioned in the Pull of Patents essay, this is not necessarily a bad thing at all; there are good institutional reasons for pursuing this type of focused research; e.g., the newspaper article mentions one – spurring regional economic development.

Of course, the law chapters are great — the RFID chapter is written by Paul Schwartz. But the main reason I bring it up here is that most of the “technical chapters” are meant for non-technical readers. The RFID/GPS/locational tracking chapters are excellent and readable introductions to the technology and some of the privacy implications.