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.
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.