This follows from what the author states about “most universities”: they “behave in ways that maximize university ownership and profit participation.” The author’s referring to universities’ behavior around IP policy, specifically. So we can infer that he thinks these universities’ policies are first and foremost meant to financially benefit the universities themselves.

The author doesn’t discuss what a university’s mission is in the first place, so we can’t say whether he thinks their policies are antithetical (i.e., contrary) to that mission.

Unsupported. The author doesn’t take a stance on how the policies affect the research itself. He only considers how the policies affect faculty and their ability to control their own IP.

Three problems. First, these policies only affect faculty pursuing research that can be commercialized, not all faculty who pursue research projects. (We have no reason to think that all research can be commercialized.) Second, “invariably” is too strong—the author indicates that under these policies, there’s a temptation for the affected faculty to jump ship, but he doesn’t go so far as to suggest that this true at all times for all potentially affected faculty. And third, just because faculty might be tempted to leave a university, that doesn’t tell us anything about the faculty’s motivation. (It’s possible to be highly motivated in your research while considering moving to another employer to continue that research.)

Unsupported. The author doesn’t bring morality into the picture. He keeps the discussion focused on universities’ policies and how they affect faculty, without suggesting what’s moral or immoral. Also, the author holds back from taking any position on legality; he notes that the legal issues surrounding these policies “remain unsettled.”