Skip to content

Minnesota University to Apple Growers — No Apples For You

September 18, 2010

The Commercialization of Higher Education At Consumer and Taxpayer Expense

The Roots of Commercialization really came about in 1980 when Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which made it easy for Universities to own and license patents on discovers made through research paid for with public funds.

Translation:   Taxpayer money is being used to fund research that Universities Patent and protect under various intellectual property laws like trademark, patent and copyright to create a monopoly over innovation that the taxpayer had paid for.  These innovations are then licensed to businesses who now have a licensed monopoly over the innovation and proceed to sell the product paid for by the American Taxpayer back to the American Taxpayer at inflated/monopolistic rates.  If that sounds like a scam, it is.

Unintended Consequences.  Businesses no longer have to do their own research.  Businesses can work with research universities, get grants for funding, test and develop i.e. medicines, pharmaceuticals, agricultural products etc.  The grants are paid for by the American taxpayer.  The Business takes no risk in the development, allowing the American Taxpayer to fund the research.  Once the research is developed, the University patents it, the business licenses it and sells it back to the  American Taxpayer at monopolistic prices.   This funding structure thwarts innovation motivated by consumer demand.   It also thwarts competition, as how can a for profit business compete with research and products being funded by the apparently unlimited deep pockets of the Feds.

Some Numbers that’ll have your head shaking.  Within a decade of the Bayh-Dole Act passing, two hundred universities (many state universities) had established offices toseek out commercially promising discoveries for the purpose of patenting them for licensing to companies.  By the year 2000, universities had increased the volume of their patenting more than 10-fold and were earning more than $1 billion per  year in royalties and license fee. 

Money Making Opportunities for University Faculty.  Individual faculty members found this new model extremely lucrative as scientists not only started to seek patents on their discoveries, they started takign attractive consulting assignments, receive stock from new firms eager for the license and expertise.

Since the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act the government’s new patent policies have led industryto seek closer ties with university scientists.  Again, why should industry pay for innovation when the government is already doing so using taxpayer money. 

Second, the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act allows Universities to restrict competition by granting exclusive licenses to preferred industry memebers.  So just like in politics, if the industry hires the faculty or provides additional money for research who do you think will get the pay back.  The license will also be extended to the businesses where the University expects to make the most money i.e. lucrative exclusive licensing agreements rather than allowing the market to set rates for licensing on a level playing field.

Third, sometimes the University does not license the resulting product.  Instead it sets up its own industry under the mislabel of “Sponsored Program.”  In english sponsored program means programs that are paid for at least in part with grant, state and federal taxpayer money.  The University then sets up its own training or services company and starts competing against private industry using materials and products that were developed and paid for by the American public.  The University then puts many private industries out of business as the University had no upstart costs as the taxpayer paid for those, and the University is tax-exempt and pays no taxes.  This is a double whammy as (1) taxpayer money funded the innovation; (2) the innovation comes to market and none of the money from the innovation is put back into the market because the University is a tax-exempt entity.

Proposed solution.  Universities should not be allowed to use products and services developed with public taxpayer money to compete with private businesses.  They should have to spin off the product and services into a separate entity and compete in the market on a level playing field.

While Universities are sucking at the taxpayer trough, tuition has risen much faster than inflation.

The University, Ivory-Tower Monopoly and Taxpayer Fraud is a Little Known and Little Publicized Area That Has Cause Harm to Society because of lack of oversight and the government-university-preferred business partnership monopoly is positioned to do enormous and great danger to the American Economy.

Below is a Story About Apples and How the University of Minnesota’s Apple Innovations and Exclusive Licensing Threaten to Put Apple Grower Farmers Out of Business

Licensing deal for hot new apple comes under fire


A new breed of apple has been a hit with consumers lucky enough to find it. Cindy and Frank Femling, however, are among the growers who fear it could put them out of business.

The SweeTango, with its juicy crunch and intense sweet-tart flavor with a note of spice, just entered its second year of limited release across U.S. It’s marketed by a select group of growers under an exclusive licensing deal with the University of Minnesota.

The university chose Minnesota’s largest orchard, Pepin Heights, to commercialize its new apple. But 15 other orchards say it’s not a sweet deal for them, and they’re suing. The school counters that research universities everywhere award exclusive rights to all kinds of intellectual property, and that the royalties are crucial for replacing shrinking public funding for research. It also says the deal is needed to protect the quality of an apple it spent more than a decade developing.

“When Pepin and the university signed this agreement, they had no consideration for what it would do to the Minnesota apple industry,” Frank Femling said. “The only thing they considered was their financial interests.”

The Femlings grow 13 kinds of apples at Afton Apple Orchard, about 15 miles southeast of downtown St. Paul. Most of their varieties came from the university, including the hugely successful Honeycrisp. They’re not growing the SweeTango, and they fear what will happen if it becomes as popular as the Honeycrisp. Cindy Femling said they’re already losing sales.

Mark Rotenberg, the university’s general counsel, said the school partners with private industry all the time to bring technology to the marketplace — not just apples but a myriad of other innovations as well, including lifesaving drugs and medical devices.

“This has become, for research universities across the United States, the dominant way in which basic research is made available to benefit the community at large,” Rotenberg said.

As an example, Rotenberg pointed to the technology transfer program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The 75-year-old Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation is considered a leader in turning university research into products that benefit society, and using the licensing income to support further scientific investigation.

Emily Bauer, a licensing manager at the foundation who specializes in plant technology, said it generally prefers nonexclusive licensing because it wants the technology to be widely used. She said the foundation doesn’t usually award exclusive licenses for agricultural products. But in some cases, she said, exclusive licensing is the only way to get the technology into the marketplace.

Rotenberg said the university believed Pepin Heights could do the best job of quickly getting SweeTango apples into the market.

Dennis Courtier, owner of Pepin Heights in Lake City, said restrictions on who grows it are necessary to protect the quality as it competes with other snack foods, including candy bars and potato chips.

“This is about share of stomach. … The fact is, sorry, red delicious (apples) just don’t compete with Cheetos,” Courtier said.

As the university’s lucrative patent on the Honeycrisp was about to expire, the school launched the SweeTango — a cross between the Honeycrisp and its Zestar! — to keep revenue flowing to support its cold-climate fruit research.

It also wanted to avoid a repeat of a significant problem with the Honeycrisp. Anybody could plant it anywhere, and the quality suffered in warmer growing areas, hurting its reputation. So it picked Courtier and Pepin Heights, who formed the “Next Big Thing” cooperative to manage and safeguard the SweeTango. It has 45 growers in five states — Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and New York — plus Quebec and Nova Scotia in Canada.

The university is hoping the deal yields a repeat of the more than $8 million it earned from the Honeycrisp. Besides a $1 per tree royalty, Next Big Thing pays the university 4.5 percent of the apple’s net wholesale sales.

Orchards outside of Minnesota that don’t join the co-op can’t grow it. Minnesota growers who aren’t in the co-op must sign an agreement with Pepin Heights and accept restrictions that plaintiffs such as the Femlings consider one-sided.

The restrictions let them sell the apples at their own orchards, at farmers markets and to local stores, but they can’t pool with other growers to sell in larger volumes. The plaintiffs say that shuts them out of the wholesale market and major grocery chains. And they’re limited to no more than 1,000 trees apiece with a cap of 50,000 trees statewide.

Courtier said more than 85 Minnesota growers outside the co-op have signed the agreement, and only a handful have planted the maximum 1,000.

The lawsuit seeks to void the licensing deals, saying they unfairly restrain free trade, plus unspecified financial damages.

“I have every confidence that we are in compliance with state and federal laws,” Courtier said.

Fred Wescott, a producer and wholesaler in Elgin who joined the lawsuit after losing out to Pepin Heights to manage the SweeTango, said a settlement that drops restrictions on Minnesota growers would be the best way to end the lawsuit. Rotenberg wouldn’t discuss what settlement the university might accept.

Cindy Femling said anything developed at the university should be available to Minnesota growers because its research is still partly taxpayer supported.

“If it wasn’t for us Minnesota growers, the Honeycrisp wouldn’t have been as popular as what it is. And then now they’re insulting us by telling us that we cannot grow a quality apple,” Frank Femling said.



Minnesota Apple Growers for Fair Trade:

SweeTango Apples official site:

University of Minnesota SweeTango page:


Another reference for the Bayh-Dole Act Material is Derek Bok’s Universities in the Marketplace  the Commercialization of Higher Education 

Jennifer Washburn’s University, Inc., The Corporate Corruption of Higher Ed.  We note, it’s more of a partnership of corruption between government-universities and corporations.

Click Here for Stimulus Money Going to Universities for Research Projects

University of Michigan $1billion research year.  Up 14.7% due to Federal Stimulus Funds

  1. Thank you for another informative site. Where else could I get that type of info written in such a perfect way? I’ve a project that I am just now working on, and I’ve been on the look out for such information.

  2. Great beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a blog site? The account aided me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: