> if NIH money was involved in this, shouldn't everyone get to use it?
In principle, yes, but the Bayh-Dole act gives away any government stake in IP rights.
Some people see Bayh-Dole as an obviously corrupt and terrible idea. Those people typically haven't gone through the struggle of trying to justify the value proposition (or lack thereof) in an academic career. We (the US) are getting worse and worse at funding academia and this is one of the creative alternative "funding" sources used to prop up the increasingly shaky system (another important one: green cards). I suspect that if you asked most people involved in day-to-day research they'd rather take extra cash in exchange for letting the government keep some of the IP, but they aren't the ones who get to choose.
In principle, yes, but the Bayh-Dole act gives away any government stake in IP rights.
Some people see Bayh-Dole as an obviously corrupt and terrible idea. Those people typically haven't gone through the struggle of trying to justify the value proposition (or lack thereof) in an academic career. We (the US) are getting worse and worse at funding academia and this is one of the creative alternative "funding" sources used to prop up the increasingly shaky system (another important one: green cards). I suspect that if you asked most people involved in day-to-day research they'd rather take extra cash in exchange for letting the government keep some of the IP, but they aren't the ones who get to choose.