[gregparadee]

I think its great the the university decided to change their IP policy. I know at my school it is brutal and discouraged a few students from doing ideas they think they could work on after graduating and maintain complete ownership of.

For example here is how my University defines Patents (or IP)

Inventions involving the use of funds, space, personnel, equipment or facilities administered by the University, but without any University obligations to others in connection with such support, are the property of the University.

And the income? Let's just say you dont want to make a lot of money off of something you create.

A.1 Schedule of Net Income Distribution

For the first $10,000 of net income:100% to the inventor.

For the next $500,000 in cumulative net income: 50% to the inventors, 25% to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Policy, 25% to the inventor's Institutional Unit(s)

For the next $1,000,000 in cumulative net income: 40% to the inventors, 35% to the Office of Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Policy, 25% to the inventor's Institutional Unit(s)

For cumulative net income in excess of $1,510,000: 25% to the inventors, 50% to the Office of Vice Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate Policy, 25% to the inventor's Institutional Unit(s)

I wish more universities would follow in the footsteps of the University of Missouri at Columbia and be more relaxed on there IP rights. It would encourage students to produce better work and could possibly give the university a better name if the students work becomes popular. For example how many times have you read an article where it say "John Doe, a graduate of No Name University, created product while a student."

[mikeknoop]

Mizzou Senior here -- I am very satisfied with my University's decision, I just wish this story isn't the "rare" exception.

Full details:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilfjD3zn6I...

[bugsy]

This is about undergrad work, correct? Since ownership of grad work by university is already defined and accepted.

What was the written policy for undergrad ip previously? There wasn't one, is that correct? And since there wasn't one the university actually didn't own any undergrad work at all since undergrads are not employees of the university and it is not work for hire and they have not contractually agreed to any other arrangement.

So what really happened is the university's lawyers realized there was no legal basis for their claims at all.

Rather than drop the claims though they chose to revise the policy asserting claims.

> Missouri relented in Brown's case. It also wrote rules explicitly giving student inventors the legal right to their unique ideas developed under specific circumstances. If the invention came from a school contest, extracurricular club or individual initiative, the university keeps its hands off. If the student invention came about under a professor's supervision, using school resources or grant money, then the university can assert an ownership right — just as it does for faculty researchers.

So now there is a policy in place that undergrads must contractually agree to as part of agreeing to university rules, which in many cases gives ownership to the university of undergrad work which was not the case before, such as if "using school resources" like their internet connection or student lounges or done "under a professor's supervision", which was never the case before for unimportant undergrad work.

Undergrads haven't traditionally done original valuable research or development. Universities have realized that they do and they want a cut of it. There is no justification for it in the common law, so they are asserting the rights contractually now, while issuing press releases claiming that they are making things better for students, which is actually propaganda since the opposite has just occurred. Something of a common PR tactic to do this.