4 ms·

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

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.