[Cd00d]

Yeah, I thought it was somewhat due to Stanford's handling of IP. The argument I heard was that if you're researching at Stanford and make a productizable discovery you can spin off a company no strings. I was at Cornell when I heard this, where any company built off on-campus research had to sign over 20% of the company up front. Makes those initial pitches to VC that much harder.

[cjhveal]

I don't think that's the case. I've anecdotally heard that Stanford does take some (possibly small) amount of equity. From the first paragraph of Stanford's patent policy[0]:

> All potentially patentable inventions conceived or first reduced to practice in whole or in part by members of the faculty or staff (including student employees) of the University in the course of their University responsibilities or with more than incidental use of University resources, shall be disclosed on a timely basis to the University. Title to such inventions shall be assigned to the University, regardless of the source of funding, if any.

For an example of an institution with the kind of IP policy you're describing, the University of Waterloo in Canada has a policy[1] that by default assigns IP to creators rather than the institution:

> Except as stipulated below, it is University policy that ownership of rights in IP created in the course of teaching and research activities belong to the creator(s).

[0]: https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-han... [1]: https://uwaterloo.ca/secretariat/policies-procedures-guideli...

[LolWolf]

Yeah, the important part about this is "with more than incidental use of University resources," which, for software, is almost nonexistent. (Even internet usage doesn't count as more than "incidental," which I know is a point that many places use to "suggest" they had a part in the creation.)

Otoh, they are extremely supportive of professors and PhDs (and undergrads, though those are often more software) starting companies based on research, and have very good policies regarding this. Most people end up generally happy on all sides.

[ibarea23]

Yeah this is definitely false. In most cases you own 1/3 at Stanford. But Stanford supports entrepreneurship like nowhere else, in my experience.

[Cd00d]

That's interesting. Maybe it's the amount of equity that matters so much - it's been years since I heard this and it was an off-hand comment in a talk.

[davidajackson]

Might be different in upper levels, but this wasn't the case from my experience as an undergrad at Stanford. Wanted to mess around with programming drones for a prototype delivery system (I think in 2015), submitted my proposal for a 2k grant to buy a drone, but I dropped the idea when the committee that manages it said they would make decisions about IP. Maybe my proposal wasn't important enough to warrant an actual negotiation? I suspect that at upper levels of development/research this process is handled differently.

[dekhn]

undergraduates aren't employees and have total freedom to do what they want with their intellectual output. However, they can just decide not to give you any money if you make trouble.

[dekhn]

it was a lot more. they built an incubator called Stanford Research Park as a joint venture with Palo Alto. It gave access to students (key to any tech company, getting fresh students with new ideas and up to date knowledge), access to VC, and nice facilities for tech startups.

I don't know the exact terms of universities when it comes to founding companies but I don't see how the university can prevent you from founding a company, or demand a percentage.

[chimeracoder]

> The argument I heard was that if you're researching at Stanford and make a productizable discovery you can spin off a company no strings

It's definitely not "no strings" - otherwise Stanford wouldn't be the actual owners of PageRank (which they licensed to Google).