Has anyone accepted this year's version of Cotton Incorporated's award?  We
seem to be fighting a losing battle with them and are interested in
favorable terms that other schools may have received.  OR are interested in
the rationale used for accepting this kind of unfavorable IP language.  It
appeared that we were making headway with them through the State Ag
Experiment Station Directors and letters from various IP offices around the
country; however, the alternate language they sent back to us is just as
bad as before.  When challenged again, they gave us more time to find a
licensee but still require more than is appropriate for their level of
involvement and for the goal they "say" they are trying to accomplish.
They think that controlling our ownership and license terms, they can
reduce the overall market price to the cotton producer when a product
finally reaches the market.  Their goal is admirable and supported by the
institutions who conduct cotton research, however the methodology they are
trying to enforce will not accomplish their goal. In fact, the language
they propose may actually discourage any licensee thus halting the further
development and marketing of any product so that the cotton producer will
never benefit from the research that they supported in part.  Thanks for
any information you can provide.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha M. Taylor, Director             (xxxxxx@mail.auburn.edu)
Contracts and Grants Administration
310 Samford Hall
Auburn University, AL 36849-5131

334-844-4438
334-844-5953 (fax)