

IPhone App Raises Questions About Who Owns Student Inventions - alphadoggs
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/iphone-app-raises-questions-about-who-owns-student-inventions/29265

======
bugsy
Years ago when I was in undergrad at a top engineering school I had heard
about this situation with grad students but it was not clear what the policy
was with undergrads. Before starting classes for the first semester, I met
with the provost and asked him whether the university asserted any IP claims
on any undergrad work, related or unrelated to school. He assured me
absolutely not and thought the idea was crazy. I wrote down what he said and
asked him to sign it as an official of the school. He thought that was
unnecessary but signed it.

During my senior year I invented some technology on my own time. A couple
years ago a professor from the school found out about this at a conference we
both attended, and subsequently I was contacted by one of the school's lawyers
who indicated they believed they owned my invention and I was in violation of
the school's rights. Fortunately I still had my signed paper and they realized
they would never be able to prevail in court.

If you have any intention whatsoever of doing creative original work of any
sort in college either on campus or off (or even in a part time job off
campus), you need to get it IN WRITING that the university will not assert IP
rights. If they will not give this to you signed and in writing, do not write
a tuition check. Find another college, or better yet, skip college entirely.
It is a complete rip off.

------
gregparadee
I think its great the the university decided to change their IP policy. I know
at my school it is brutal and discouraged a few students from doing ideas they
think they could work on after graduating and maintain complete ownership of.

For example here is how my University defines Patents (or IP)

Inventions involving the use of funds, space, personnel, equipment or
facilities administered by the University, but without any University
obligations to others in connection with such support, are the property of the
University.

And the income? Let's just say you dont want to make a lot of money off of
something you create.

A.1 Schedule of Net Income Distribution

For the first $10,000 of net income:100% to the inventor.

For the next $500,000 in cumulative net income: 50% to the inventors, 25% to
the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Policy, 25%
to the inventor's Institutional Unit(s)

For the next $1,000,000 in cumulative net income: 40% to the inventors, 35% to
the Office of Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Policy, 25% to
the inventor's Institutional Unit(s)

For cumulative net income in excess of $1,510,000: 25% to the inventors, 50%
to the Office of Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Policy, 25% to
the inventor's Institutional Unit(s)

I wish more universities would follow in the footsteps of the University of
Missouri at Columbia and be more relaxed on there IP rights. It would
encourage students to produce better work and could possibly give the
university a better name if the students work becomes popular. For example how
many times have you read an article where it say "John Doe, a graduate of No
Name University, created product while a student."

~~~
mikeknoop
Mizzou Senior here -- I am very satisfied with my University's decision, I
just wish this story isn't the "rare" exception.

Full details:

[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilfjD3zn6I...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilfjD3zn6ImYtcZIVjuam7MztG8A?docId=1e12e21030c044938bb0f2d37e7c6130)

~~~
bugsy
This is about undergrad work, correct? Since ownership of grad work by
university is already defined and accepted.

What was the written policy for undergrad ip previously? There wasn't one, is
that correct? And since there wasn't one the university actually didn't own
any undergrad work at all since undergrads are not employees of the university
and it is not work for hire and they have not contractually agreed to any
other arrangement.

So what really happened is the university's lawyers realized there was no
legal basis for their claims at all.

Rather than drop the claims though they chose to revise the policy asserting
claims.

> Missouri relented in Brown's case. It also wrote rules explicitly giving
> student inventors the legal right to their unique ideas developed under
> specific circumstances. If the invention came from a school contest,
> extracurricular club or individual initiative, the university keeps its
> hands off. If the student invention came about under a professor's
> supervision, using school resources or grant money, then the university can
> assert an ownership right — just as it does for faculty researchers.

So now there is a policy in place that undergrads must contractually agree to
as part of agreeing to university rules, which in many cases gives ownership
to the university of undergrad work which was not the case before, such as if
"using school resources" like their internet connection or student lounges or
done "under a professor's supervision", which was never the case before for
unimportant undergrad work.

Undergrads haven't traditionally done original valuable research or
development. Universities have realized that they do and they want a cut of
it. There is no justification for it in the common law, so they are asserting
the rights contractually now, while issuing press releases claiming that they
are making things better for students, which is actually propaganda since the
opposite has just occurred. Something of a common PR tactic to do this.

------
aspir
Having worked in the university tech transfer system, I can say that, for a
fact, it is extremely flawed and unable to appropriately address modern
software, let alone student-generated apps. Its an archaic model that works
best with heavily patentable biotech, semiconductors, and the like.

Tech Transfer offices nationwide have all been left scratching their heads
about the issue raised by this article. However, most TT officials have little
hands on development experience within the past 5 years or more; they're
completely oblivious to modern trends in entrepreneurship. When in doubt, they
often are too strict. Likely, Mizzou has adjusted their policy to retain some
ownership rights of all of the "work students do as part of a class, to
student work created as part of a competition, to work students do in an
extracurricular group that is sponsored by the university."

The nationwide advisory branch (AUTM) may claim that they don't want to hold
student work, but it's decided at a university level. When universities begin
to see lost potential revenue, they'll want a piece of it.

My advice to students is to not use university resources for anything unless
you have to. Use your own computers, get a "work" email off of the school's
server, and perhaps do your work via a coffee shop's WiFi instead of the
school's. It may seem extreme, but it's better safe than sorry.

~~~
orangewarp
Prudent to be on the safe side but also difficult. When you live and breathe
grad life, it's really hard to keep the projects separate from the thinking,
collaborating, working that naturally comes from being in an environment full
of bright, motivated, enthusiastic people.

And this is part of the dilemma right? Being in the school environment is
clearly a priceless opportunity to find and work with great colleagues. Very
important to find out if you'd make it with these people after you're bumped
out of the safe harbor that is academia. So, waiting till graduation is a cost
with its own potential risks and drawbacks.

I agree that we should be cautious and try to minimize the footprint we leave
for the school to point out. But the hurdle to truly separate everything is
quite high, and given the options it's probably going to end up a situation
where you just have to do what you do in stealth mode to some extent. At least
until Universities address this issue very explicitly and clearly.

It's great that this issue is being raised. Perhaps there needs to be more
student advocacy to take this issue forward and work with Universities to
articulate very clear guidelines of what is acceptable and not. Like you said,
the old models don't reflect the nature of entrepreneurship today and the
nebulous boundaries are keeping people from charging ahead on the things that
matter most.

------
daimyoyo
Can someone please explain why this is legal? I fully understand that students
are using school resources and faculty expertise to complete assignments for
class, but isn't that what they're paying tens of thousands of dollars per
year to do? Ownership of IP makes sense in a work for hire arrangement but
these kids are PAYING to be there. What are they getting in return for the
money?

~~~
guptaneil
The argument is usually that university resources were used (wifi, computers,
space, etc), so the university should receive compensation since tuition is to
pay for receiving an education, not starting a business.

Having said that, schools that still enforce a policy like that are only
hurting themselves by discouraging entrepreneurship, and it's only a matter of
time until all schools have similar IP policies as this one. I'm lucky my
university strongly believes in encouraging entrepreneurship and does not
assert any ownership over student work, even if university equipment is used.

~~~
dhimes
_since tuition is to pay for receiving an education, not starting a business_

I think there is a gaping hole in this argument. When you go to a
college/university, you are entering an environment of learning and
exploration, both personal and intellectual. It's not just an "education" in
the sense of "book knowledge." Some unis have policies dictating where you can
live, whether or not you can drive a car, and have disciplinary policies for
violating certain rules (read: drinking) that have to do with this
environment, not with intellectual education.

And I completely agree with you that schools that try to get it both ways and
deny the student the fruit of their complete growth, including
entrepreneurship, are doing them a disservice.

Do athletes that turn pro based on the skills they develop in college have to
tithe their salary back to the school?

EDIT: I obviously need to make it clear that I am continuing your point, not
disagreeing.

~~~
guptaneil
I absolutely agree, I was just explaining the argument from the POV of the
university.

Your athlete analogy sums up the issue perfectly.

------
octopus
This will encourage more students to put their ideas in practice.

~~~
jasonlotito
Don't know why you got downvoted.

For the misinformed, the article talks about how the university went ahead and
fixed it's policies at the request of the students and faculty to ensure that
they had the rights to distribute the app.

This sort of action will indeed encourage students.

~~~
bryanlarsen
He got downvoted because people downvoted without actually reading the
attached article, assuming they knew what the article actually said. Maybe HN
needs a "did you actually read the article?" confirmation before allowing a
downvote.

~~~
jasonlotito
Maybe they should use the piracy prevention method of old games.

"In the last paragraph of the linked article, name the person quoted."

~~~
nitrogen
It would be an amusing denial of service for the referenced article's author
to change the text after the questions have been generated.

------
boucher
I think that policies very significantly from place to place, and even from
field to field. I know that at USC, the policy is favorable to students in
most fields
([http://policies.usc.edu/policies/intellectualproperty040301....](http://policies.usc.edu/policies/intellectualproperty040301.pdf)).
Software developed by students or faculty, even if it uses things like USC
computer labs or Internet access or any commonly available office supply, is
owned by the creator unless it was done as a paid work product or under a
specific agreement with the University. On the other side of the equation,
cinema students give up most of the rights to movies they create under the
explanation that significant University resources are used in the production
of those movies.

------
gersh
Has any university ever successfully asserted ownership over its student's
work? Legally how does the university acquire ownership? I don't see how use
of university facilities give the university ownership. Further, the students
paid the university. When did universities acquire the right to steal people's
work without paying for it?

Universities may think they are the government, but I don't see how they
acquire such rights, legally. Are students considered the university's slaves?

~~~
steveklabnik
They're required to patent everything that they can.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act>

------
sriram_sun
I believe that students should be allowed to innovate without fear. If all
goes well, they'll come back to the university to recruit and donate to their
favorite research programs anyway. These students are probably paying fees for
utilizing lab equipment and for the courses they attend. I remember I paid a
$150 "computer access fee" every semester about a decade back.

