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.

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.

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.

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).

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.)