Who owns faculty ideas? Cambridge offers U.S. view

LONDON — In the quiet stone halls of Cambridge University, a distinctly
21st century battle is brewing over a question that has vexed academic
institutions around the world. Who owns faculty members’ ideas — some of
them very profitable?

By BETH GARDINER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Cambridge has angered some of its professors by proposing a very American
notion: that it should hold the rights and patents to all the concepts and
inventions they create.

Critics say taking control away from researchers could corrupt the university’s
mission by putting the profit motive ahead of a traditional focus on advancing
the frontiers of knowledge and contributing to the public good.

The proposal’s opponents — many of them computer and biotechnology
researchers who have made handsome profits from their work — also warn
that the change could remove the incentive to innovate and squelch a
university-led boom that has made the Cambridge area Britain’s high-tech
center, dubbed "Silicon Fen."

"We may be forced to maximize our profit in the short term even though that
may not be in the benefit of society in the long term," argued Mike Clark, a
lecturer in pathology. "I don’t think universities should think that way."

The university says the change would be fairer than the current system, which
gives Cambridge ownership of results from research funded by private groups
and some government departments while letting faculty members hold the
rights to work paid for by a larger public grant program.

"What the university is looking to do is put all staff on equal footing," said
Simon Jones, head of research collaborations.

Opponents say the change would move Cambridge from being one of the
country’s most generous universities on intellectual property to one of those
that holds rights most tightly. Jones said it would bring the rules in line with
those at most other British universities.

If the proposal passes — faculty members will decide and are to consider it in
October — the university would, as of next year, hold all rights stemming from
work staff do on the job, with the exception of written material such as books
and articles.

Faculty members would keep 90 percent of the first 20,000 pounds
($30,000) their idea makes, a share that declines as the profits increase, down
to a third of income above 100,000 pounds ($150,000).

"It’s killing the goose that lays the golden eggs," said Ross Anderson, a
computer science professor leading the fight against the plan. "The university
will … have its hand in our pocket, and it’s outrageous."

Anderson credits the university’s traditionally liberal approach to patent rights
with helping make it a center for cutting-edge research and fueling the area’s
slew of start-up technology companies.

He predicted that some faculty members dependent on outside income would
quit right away.

"The economic effects will take a longer time to work themselves out…. There
just won’t be as much business formation."

The university disagrees, saying that while the current system provides some
incentives, there is too little support for academics trying to navigate the
business world. Under the new plan, it promises to provide more help.

In Britain and in the United States, universities eager to bolster their budgets
have jealously eyed the profits of professors, mostly in the sciences, who have
found market applications for their work.

Nearly all American universities keep ownership of patents on inventions
created at their schools — while sharing any royalties with the inventor. A
1980 U.S. law enables them to retain ownership of inventions created by their
scholars with federal funds. U.S. schools hold 13,000 patents, which earned
them $1.26 billion in royalties in 2000, according to the Association of
University Technology Managers.

Stanford, for one, owns nearly all patents granted to inventions made in its lab
and last year reaped $41.2 million in royalties, said Katharine Ku, the school’s
director of technology transfer. Stanford keeps a third of the royalties, its
inventors get one-third and the inventors’ departments receive the rest. Other
U.S. schools are less generous to the inventors.

At Cambridge, some faculty members fear that taking away researchers’
control over their work would make it impossible for them to share ideas
freely and make sure they’re used in the way that benefits the most people.

Clark said, for example, that he feared giving the university control over drug
patents could mean they end up in the hands of pharmaceutical companies
more interested in gaining competitive advantage than ensuring medicines reach
those who need them. Cambridge promises it will not commercialize an idea
against the will of its originator.

The free flow of ideas is crucial to advancing scientific understanding, Clark
argued. He cited the work of the non-profit Sanger Center in Cambridge,
which made the human genome sequences it mapped freely available on the
Internet while corporate competitors kept theirs secret.

Under the proposed rules, Clark said, Cambridge could conceivably agree to
give all the patent rights stemming from a particular academic department to a
corporation that makes a large donation.

"Our ideas are much better off widely spread and freely available to
everyone," he said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/84870_ideas30.shtml