Who owns the research outputs?

For ten years, through the 1990s, I worked as a professor of law in the University of Hull in Northern England. Every so often I would be present at the kind of conversation where people mused on missed opportunities, and one of the recurring topics under that heading was why the university had not become super-duper rich from the proceeds of its best known invention, liquid crystal displays (LCD). This technology was developed in the 1960s by a research team in Hull led by Professor George William Gray. However in 1970 a patent for LCD was filed by the Swiss company Hoffmann-LaRoche, and in the end the University of Hull never benefited materially beyond getting recognition for this work in some scholarly articles. The big question always was, what went wrong, and why did Hull not protect its discovery?

The issue remains a live one, and partly because universities want to maximise the payback from discoveries most now maintain full-time patent officers and, sometimes, whole legal teams. The issues are complex and involve the following considerations:

• Most (but not all) major university discoveries have been funded by the taxpayer, and it is thought to be unacceptable if the profits from this flow largely or entirely into private or corporate pockets.
• Universities often expect academics who discover something that can be commercialised to recognise that the output is university property, as it was developed on their time and with their resources.
• On the other hand, universities also want to incentivise staff to work on such discoveries.
• Companies want to work with universities where the latter can support them to develop products or processes that have commercial potential, and will fund university work, but expect to be able to secure as their property any resulting discoveries.

All these different interests can compete with each other in securing intellectual property and gaining profits from it. One recent example of the disputes that may arise is a case that just this week has gone to the US Supreme Court, involving a new method to detect HIV developed at Stanford University. The case involves the conflicting interests of the university, the researcher who developed the process and the company now commercialising it – ironically Roche (as Hoffmann-LaRoche is now called). The question for the Court is whether the academic in question was entitled to assign the intellectual property to the company, or whether it was Stanford’s property.

What are we to conclude? First, there needs to be legal certainty that serves all the various interests but in particular protects the public interest – which must be that research should be encouraged and that it should be translated into use as effectively as possible., but also in a way that supports commercial involvement. Secondly, universities need to have clear agreements with their employees as to the distribution of rights and interests. Thirdly, universities need to be good at recognising which pieces of intellectual property are worth protecting and which are not. Registering a patent costs money, but much more importantly defending it can cost a fortune. If the end product isn’t worth much, then the registration isn’t worth the effort and cost either.

On the whole universities need support in this, and certainly should pool their resources. But all sides should take this topic very seriously. University-based research is likely to be a major contributor to economic activity in the future.

Explore posts in the same categories: university

Tags: , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

3 Comments on “Who owns the research outputs?”

  1. Vincent Says:

    Well yes, but at what point does one halt the process. Given that company A and academy A together with academic A are the tail of a very long process are the Cavendish/Devonshires going to get a chunk of cash for the discoveries of Robert Boyle.
    I think it’s best that the academic owns it, but that the academy gets a set percent return. I also believe that this hold if the discovery happens within a company’s own research facilities on the simple principle that an legal construct cannot make discoveries and therefore cannot own them.

  2. newellhj Says:

    Very interesting post. From my point of view, more interesting that you don’t mention the standardisation at all throughout, especially as one of the most profitable technological innovations, MPEG, came through the standardisation system, led by research from the University of Erlangen.

    There’s a lot of interesting articles about the role standardisation could play for research here: http://www.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/2896/Special-Normen-2-2007.pdf


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: