Self-study
P1
Faculty researchers, particularly in scientific, engineering, and medical programs, often produce scientific discoveries and invent products or processes that have potential commercial value. ████ ████████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████████ ███
Context ·
Faculty researchers produce discoveries with commercial value
Universities can profit by licensing those discoveries
Problem ·
Financially tempting for faculty to leave university and work for startup
If universities don't incentivize their faculty correctly, that is.
Solution ·
Reconsider universities IP policies to give faculty the right level of flexibility to profit from their inventions
So, is the issue that the universities are hoarding all the profit upside? I suppose if I made a huge biotech discovery, I wouldn't be too happy if my university didn't share the profit with me.
P2
██ █ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ █ ████████ ██████████████ ██ █████████████ █████████ ███
Classification of IP Policies ·
4 types
This is based on Patricia Chew's scholarship.
Type 1 ·
Supramaximalist
Everything belongs to the university. Even discoveries made while not at work.
Type 2 ·
Maximalist
Everything belongs to the university, except inventions unconnected to their employment.
Type 3 ·
Significant use
If "significant use" of university time and facilities involved, then university owns IP.
P3
██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ █████████ █████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ████████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████████████ ███ ██ ████████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████████████
Commentary ·
University ownership is the rule, faculty ownership is the exception
Chew and others note that this is actually contrary to what common law assumes, which is that as a rule faculty own IP. Author claims most universities are taking advantage of their faculty when maximizing ownership and profit rights.
P4
███ █████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████████████ ████████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ████████████ ██████████ █████████████ ██ █████ ████████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████████
Type 4 (Solution) ·
Faculty-oriented
Faculty ownership is the rule, university ownership is the exception.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
22.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
a
While institutions expect ██ ███████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ██████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████
This misrepresents the problem and ignores the solution. The problem isn’t a lack of “clear-cut” policies—it sounds like universities are pretty clear about their policies. (They pretty much have complete say over ownership of faculty IP.) The problem is the kind of policies universities tend to use (they’re one-sided in favor of the university) and the lack of flexibility in those policies for faculty to profit from their own IP. And (A) ignores the solution: a “faculty-oriented” approach favors faculty more and is more in line with how common law views IP.
b
The fourfold classification ██ █████████████ ████████ █████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ █████████████
This misrepresents the problem and solution. The problem isn’t that we don’t know how to categorize university policies, and the solution isn’t simply to adopt the fourfold classification. The problem is that university policies on IP ownership are one-sided in favor of the university, and the solution is the “faculty-oriented” approach, which presumes that faculty own their IP. The fourfold classification is just a means of exploring the problem and identifying the solution. (B) is also wrong about what the fourfold system actually describes. It describes ownership policies, not the “steps institutions are taking” to keep faculty from being lured away. The author doesn’t discuss any concrete efforts by universities to retain faculty.
c
To prevent the ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ████████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ███████████
Too strong. The author doesn’t go so far as to say that the only way for universities to keep their faculty is to presume that faculty control their own IP. (C) makes the solution out as necessary to solve the problem, but the author is much more reserved than that. He just presents the “faculty-oriented” approach as one interesting possibility that manages to avoid the problem of university overreach.
d
While the policies ██ ████ ████████████ █████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████████████ █████████
This accurately captures both the problem (universities’ inflexible policies tend to maximize ownership over faculty IP) and the solution (the “faculty-oriented” approach is more flexible for faculty).
e
Most institutional policies █████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █████
This presents a problem but no solution, which is enough reason to eliminate it. It also gets the problem wrong. The author doesn’t suggest that university policies are “indefensible” (maybe the universities have good reasons for their policies) or that faculty don’t know about any other options. The author just raises the concern that those policies run counter to common law, are one-sided in favor of the universities, and faculty don’t know about their rights. (Simply knowing whether other options exist, and knowing whether you have the right to fight for another option, are two different things.)