3 ms·

Universities should teach, research, and publish. What the heck are they doing in patent litigation?! Also, is CMU partially tax funded? If so, do they really

Universities should teach, research, and publish. What the heck are they doing in patent litigation?! Also, is CMU partially tax funded? If so, do they really own these patents to begin with? Should they?

tingletech 14y ago
In the process of research, professors and graduate students (and sometimes non-academic appointment staff) make discoveries and inventions that can be patented. The University owns part of every patent, because the University often provides the infrastructure yadda yadda, but usually the academics are the ones who start companies to exploit the patent. Technology transfer officers who manage the University patent portfolios will negotiate licenses if you call them up, but these offices are often dealing with grant compliance issues as well and are dealing with so much data it seems like they can hardly keep track of all the research going on in the academy, let alone look for patent violators. I don't think a University ever owns 100% of a patent, so I have to believe it is the inventor's company that is really going after people; and the university is just a co-plantif because they own part of the patent are are legally compelled to take part in the patent defense / plus they want to get their slice of the pie.
- Brashman 14y ago
  If the professors and graduate students involved in this didn't start a company to exploit the company, then I'm guessing the university still owns 100% of the patent (I don't know if that's the case in this situation or not). I think this is similar to in industry when employees may have their name on patents but the company they're working for will own the patent. This case gets me thinking a bit because they are probably involved in this in part so that they can get money to do more research. It's not like they're doing this as a power play to grab more market share.
  - tingletech 14y ago
    > If the professors and graduate students involved in this didn't start a company to exploit the company, then I'm guessing the university still owns 100% of the patent That is not consistent with how I personally interpret http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/IntellProp.html http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/IntellProp.html but I am not a patent lawyer > so that they can get money to do more research. Some research requires massive public and private investment, and the rational for the technology transfer function of a university is to recoup the costs of R&D from commercial products that are legitimately derivative from these investments, so as to reinvest in the facilities and create more original knowledge that can lead to more commercial products.
- linuxhansl 14y ago
  My point was more along the line that a university should exist for the public good of education. As such it should teach, research, and publish (and by publishing produce prior art that prevent future patenting of the invention). Acquiring patents (or being complicit in doing so) and then litigating (even as a proxy) does not appear to be in the public interest.

tingletech 14y ago

In the process of research, professors and graduate students (and sometimes non-academic appointment staff) make discoveries and inventions that can be patented. The University owns part of every patent, because the University often provides the infrastructure yadda yadda, but usually the academics are the ones who start companies to exploit the patent. Technology transfer officers who manage the University patent portfolios will negotiate licenses if you call them up, but these offices are often dealing with grant compliance issues as well and are dealing with so much data it seems like they can hardly keep track of all the research going on in the academy, let alone look for patent violators. I don't think a University ever owns 100% of a patent, so I have to believe it is the inventor's company that is really going after people; and the university is just a co-plantif because they own part of the patent are are legally compelled to take part in the patent defense / plus they want to get their slice of the pie.

Brashman 14y ago
If the professors and graduate students involved in this didn't start a company to exploit the company, then I'm guessing the university still owns 100% of the patent (I don't know if that's the case in this situation or not). I think this is similar to in industry when employees may have their name on patents but the company they're working for will own the patent. This case gets me thinking a bit because they are probably involved in this in part so that they can get money to do more research. It's not like they're doing this as a power play to grab more market share.
- tingletech 14y ago
  > If the professors and graduate students involved in this didn't start a company to exploit the company, then I'm guessing the university still owns 100% of the patent That is not consistent with how I personally interpret http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/IntellProp.html http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/IntellProp.html but I am not a patent lawyer > so that they can get money to do more research. Some research requires massive public and private investment, and the rational for the technology transfer function of a university is to recoup the costs of R&D from commercial products that are legitimately derivative from these investments, so as to reinvest in the facilities and create more original knowledge that can lead to more commercial products.
linuxhansl 14y ago
My point was more along the line that a university should exist for the public good of education. As such it should teach, research, and publish (and by publishing produce prior art that prevent future patenting of the invention). Acquiring patents (or being complicit in doing so) and then litigating (even as a proxy) does not appear to be in the public interest.