Why Support Student IP Reform?
Throughout history the United States of America has been known as a country of innovators. This reputation has been developed by our amazing university systems and individual entrepreneurs who wanted to solve a problem. However, with the advancement of this innovation an issue is presented; students feel like they can't innovate. The story below is a story of a student who went to an undisclosed university and left feeling that his university was not a place where innovation was advanced but instead stifled all because of the ambiguity left by vague Tech Transfer policies.
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing this anonymous letter at the request of Mr. Caleb Carr, an associate from my time at the University of X, to bring to light what I believe to be a great impedance to student innovation in the University X's technology transfer policy.
During my tenure as a STEM major, I theorized, designed, and built what I believe to be a highly innovative technology. I optimized that technology and am currently having success in the subsequent steps towards commercialization. It has been the most rewarding venture of my academic career thus far.
Unfortunately, due to vague and over reaching policy and an unresponsive technology transfer office, I was forced into distancing my research from my university. It is my firm belief that my ability to provide my own resources for this research was largely due to luck. I hope that this letter may aid in the fight to build a school that welcomes and encourages innovation so that future students do not have to take such a risk.
University X's policy does not make a clear distinction between policies governing faculty and staff, funded students, and unfunded students. I was an unfunded student and as such the policies only said that University X would claim rights if 'significant university resources were used.' The University X's TTO did not respond to several inquires I made as to explain what was 'significant.'
Additionally, University X's policy lists that only 25% of the ownership of any innovation is given to the inventors and discourages the inventor from holding executive positions in any resulting company. For faculty and staff, and possibly for funded students, this policy is warranted as the researcher is there on behalf of university.
However, for students who pay tuition – frequently amassing significant debt to do so – this policy is at best absurd and at worst ethically questionable.
I believe I received a world class education at University X and, further, that I did so at a small cost compared to other schools. So it is with a very heavy heart that whenever an aspiring STEM major asks me about attending any of the University X's campuses, I am forced to respond with “not if you want to innovate.”
Fortunately this situation is easy to change. The university needs to allow students to retain the rights to their innovations, only asking that if successful, the students reimburse the university for the costs of conducting the research.
The proposal of Mr. Carr is an opportunity for the University X to set a standard as to how to be a force for the academic and professional development of its student body. I hope that changes to University X's IP policy are made unanimously and without reservation.
Respectfully submitted. - W.
The idea that a student graduating from his institution willing to say "not if you want to innovate" to future students is wrong. I fully believe universities and students can work together to be able to make sure that students are represented at the table when IP polices are being developed. Together; students, faculty, administrations, and the community can make sure that the United States of America is known as the country of innovation and entrepreneurship for centuries to come!