4 ms·

It doesn't make sense to sue a startup--it's just not profitable. However, there are instances where universities have appeared to wait for the company or techn

by chengmi 19y ago

It doesn't make sense to sue a startup--it's just not profitable. However, there are instances where universities have appeared to wait for the company or technology to mature before taking legal action. Two examples of this: University of Wisconsin sues Intel for Core 2 Duo patent infringement: http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo-patent-infringement-by-the-universi/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/intel-sued-for-core-2-duo... Northeastern University sues Google over Database Architecture: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/10/google-being-sued-over-database-architecture/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/10/google-being-sued-over-... This goes to show that universities aren't always benevolent when it comes to IP. Even if the software is rewritten, there's no guarantee that university lawyers won't accuse you of infringement down the line. Isn't licensing specifically designed to address this issue of IP? What would be a reason not to license the software from the university?

pg 19y ago
Neither of these were universities suing their own students. What would be a reason not to license the software from the university? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it.
- chengmi 19y ago
  Neither of these were universities suing their own students. That's an interesting point, but 1) would the university not have sued if it were a student (or professor) that provided the IP? and 2) then why shouldn't he just use the code outright, especially since he claims to have written it and the university is not likely to care? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it. Licensing is there for a purpose--someone paid for him to develop this software, so he has an obligation to that employer to at least ask permission before using the software. Imagine if a startup took seed money from you to develop their software, then turned around to rewrite it for use in another project and thereby sidestepping your 2-10% share. Wouldn't that be unethical? They could even claim both (a) and (b) above.

by chengmi 19y ago

pg 19y ago

Neither of these were universities suing their own students. What would be a reason not to license the software from the university? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it.

chengmi 19y ago
Neither of these were universities suing their own students. That's an interesting point, but 1) would the university not have sued if it were a student (or professor) that provided the IP? and 2) then why shouldn't he just use the code outright, especially since he claims to have written it and the university is not likely to care? (a) That the university might have insanely unrealistic ideas about terms, because they're so inexperienced, and (b) that it could take so long to arrange the deal that it would literally be faster to rewrite it. Licensing is there for a purpose--someone paid for him to develop this software, so he has an obligation to that employer to at least ask permission before using the software. Imagine if a startup took seed money from you to develop their software, then turned around to rewrite it for use in another project and thereby sidestepping your 2-10% share. Wouldn't that be unethical? They could even claim both (a) and (b) above.