Student Researcher Wins Patent Dispute 182
Matthew writes: "For years, student researchers at universities have alleged that the hierarchical system in academic research allows supervising PhDs to steal and patent inventions that were rightfully discovered by students. The Federal Circuit finally addressed these concerns by interpreting the law in a way that strictly protects the rights of student researchers. As such, student researchers will now be able to sue their supervising PhDs for any actions that are not in the best interests of the student researcher or the patent rights of the student researcher."
Cheers (Score:1)
If PhD advisors can´t patent... (Score:5, Funny)
...their students inventions, they will not be motivated to have students to advice in the first place, and all innovation of the world, and civilization as we know it, will end.
</sarcasm>
Re:If PhD advisors can´t patent... (Score:1, Troll)
This makes no sense. On one hand I think "While maybe it's a classic Slashdot slam at patents?", but in this case the innovators are the students, rather than the professors, so...it just makes no sense.
Sure it makes no sense (Score:1)
people who do the work get the credit (Score:3, Insightful)
Very simply, the person who does the work gets the credit.
Also, this had nothing to do with software, and was about a victory for college students. Since many slash readers are college students, I can see the original article getting cut out and sent anonymously to many a college professor who has acted like a jerk over the years. Many of them will take advantadge of a students naivete.
And many will just blatantly say "everything you do is mine", which is something we do not want to encourage.
Re:If PhD advisors can´t patent... (Score:3, Insightful)
The original post compares to -- and effectively satirizes -- a standard RIAA argument that record labels need to keep the copyright on the music that they put out even though it's created by others; If record labels don't keep the copyrights to the music, they have no incentive to bankroll musicians, and then recorded music as we know it will end.
Or then maybe the argument for software patents...
-sker
A good thing. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A good thing. (Score:2, Interesting)
When a customer rang a PHB and wanted to know who built the new system - of which they were quite impressed - he gave them the name of a guy who scanned, cropped and resized some graphics for it.
Hey, I'm only the programmer...
Re:A good thing. (Score:2, Funny)
Dam right! It was probably the test / QA department that found all the bugs, and made you fix them, that made the customer impressed with the system.
But hey, they're only testers!
Re:A good thing. (Score:2)
When the customer came by the credit was given to an older tech. When I approached my boss about it later he said, "We can't have them thinking our important projects are being completed by teenagers." I thought IT would be the ONE field where age discrimination would not abound, but alas, that is not the case.
If other techies came into the building and your boss credited an older techie to them then I would understand your ire. But the moment your boss starts interacting with the customer you move from the IT world to the business world where the rules are not the same. If your boss promised your customer he had put his most experienced staff on their case (which he probably does to *every* customer) then much as it may seem unfair I can see why he did it. I've been publishing software since 15 yrs old and have never worried about credit, to me the satisfaction of solving the problem is enough without need for external validation.
:-)
Now I run a small software house I can see how important your external image is. The trust of your customers is critical, and no matter what is happening internally the customer must see a slick professional company that delivers timely solutions. Look on the bright side, your company probably billed out at twice the rate for the senior techie and that paid for your xmas bonus
Phillip.
Quote (Score:3, Funny)
"People don't invent things. People pay college students to invent things."
We ran into this guy at a chinese restaurant, where he was discussing his scheme to get a biochemistry major to develop implants for Marilyn Monroe (??)...
He said that he'd have gone to UNC-CH (just around the corner), but there are too many, you know, actual doctors there, who'd have asked too many questions...
There are plenty of weird people floating around colleges...
Why must it be about the money? (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but someone who is might be able to say if things like credibility, pride, or the downright disgust of the theft of something someone's poured a lot of time into are an "interest". I don't understand why if I claimed I invented the "XYZ" (when in fact my student did), the student would have no real legal recourse to say "Excuse me, that was mine, even though it's financially worthless".
Shouldn't laws defend the decency of humanity, and provide justice regardless of financial motive?
Re:Why must it be about the money? (Score:1)
What? You're not satisfied with financial motives? What are you - a commie?
Kidding aside, I find it appawling, that the federal district court in Illinois refused to let her sue. I also find it appawling, that the professor hasn't been fired for gross negligence and cunduct unbecomming.
Re:Why must it be about the money? (Score:3, Insightful)
One word. Tenure.
Tenure (Score:1)
-
-
The act, fact, or condition of holding something in one's possession, as real estate or an office; occupation.
-
A period during which something is held.
-
The status of holding one's position on a permanent basis without periodic contract renewals: a teacher granted tenure on a faculty.
So - that means he can't be firedRe:Tenure (Score:2)
Accually he can be fired, but there are a lot of rules designed to make it difficult to fire someone tenured. Normally they will only go through with those in cases of sexual harrassment, extreem lazyness (don't publish for too long), or other serious crime.
I'm surprized the university didn't fire him when they found out about this. It is certinaly a case where they should do that. Of cousre I don't have the whole story so maybe they did.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tenure (Score:1)
You need:
2 pounds of C4
2 detonators
100 yards of wire
1 battery
1 electrical switch
1 steel tube, aprox 30' long, 3' diameter
1 blackjack
1 sleaseback professor
1 pick-up truck
1 nearby river
10+ students willing to keep a secret.
Re:Why must it be about the money? (Score:2, Funny)
Until then, please settle with correcting my spelling and gramatical errors, and drop the snide remarks. They only costs karma (as will this post
Re:Why must it be about the money? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about time! (Score:1)
Long Time Coming (Score:3, Insightful)
I do believe that this corrects a widely practiced injustice.
Reb
Re:Long Time Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Long Time Coming (Score:1)
Re:Long Time Coming (Score:3, Informative)
Not so fast... (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's as universal as you make out. My partner recently submitted her Masters thesis to the University of Cambridge, UK. In the formal information given to students, along with rules about what needs to be submitted where and such, there is a section that basically says students should be mindful of their rights to intellectual property, and mark copyrights and such accordingly. The University obviously requires a non-exclusive right to use the material, e.g., to put it in their library, but that's about it, IIRC.
I'm not sure what the exact state is on patents rather than copyright, but take a look at Zeus [zeus.co.uk], a company based in Cambridge and started by ex-students. Their whole business is, apparently, based largely on one particularly good bit of work they did while studying. Given how well they were doing until recent economic events, I'm pretty sure people would have had a word if the patents weren't legit.
And what's this about "those of us in the real world", anyway? I don't know about you, but certainly I've never signed a contract that makes anything I ever discover (even on my own time) the property of my employer, nor will I ever sign such a contract. If I were going to do the kind of leading-edge research that many of these people do, I'd want to see some reasonable proportion of any future revenue/rights as well. Sure, if I'm being paid to do the research then the person paying will get the lion's share, as is only reasonable. But if my research is that important, and something only a select few people could do, they shouldn't mind letting me in on the profits a little as well.
Re:Long Time Coming (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I'm a postdoc researcher, if I were to produce anything patentable now, that would be as part of my job - what I'm paid to do (unless I come up with something unconnected at home and in my spare time) - I've signed a form to this effect, so I can't complain about it afterwards if they take ownership. Not paying royalties would be another matter though.
Of course, I still whinge about being underpaid...
Re:Long Time Coming (Score:1)
yes, for the most part if you come up with something ptentable while at work, on work related topic then it's highly likely to belong to the co, but there are clauses in english law at least where the worker can get that patent for themselves
if the invention happened in a subject of which any knowledgeable person in the field whould not expect any innovation to reasonably come from, then the inventor has a good claim to keep the patent for himself. there is also stuff in the uk patent laws about if a company buys a patent off you for little and then makes a huge amount of money off it, you can get compensation off them for not paying you enough in the first place.
don't know if any of tihs stuff has been superseeded by euro stuff though.
dave
Re:Long Time Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had the luck to work for two [umd.edu] professors [jhu.edu] who were very pro-active about getting student names on papers and patents.
Recurrent (Score:1)
That's the way it is (Score:4, Informative)
wow, there is justice in the world... (Score:1)
I really shouldn't be that surprised. It's not like people with PhD's are immune to being ignorant theiving bastards. I guess this guy just decided he wasn't ready to be a full-blown evil genius quite yet; figured he better start with something small, and then work his way up to taking over the world.
About time (Score:2)
Intellectual monopoly rights issues just keep popping up everywhere. Take that as evidence that there must be something fundamentally natural and right about the concept.
So when does it become criminal? (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case I don't see a single reason why Chou's mentor is even allowed to remain at the University, let alone be free. He lied, then used the University system against her, and finally used his authority to prevent her from redress. Flat out we don't need anyone, no matter how highly acclaimed, leading research groups.
This should lead to a complete investigation of any patents where he is listed as the sole discoverer.
Re:So when does it become criminal? (Score:2, Insightful)
But I agree that the University (as probably all others in the US) would be well advised to take action to avoid this happening again in the future (and thus a potentially large lawsuit):
Re:So when does it become criminal? (Score:2)
Not in any way I know of. As someone else pointed out, to commit a crime you have to violate a specific provision of the criminal code.
However, if a duty exists, it's possible to be found civilly liable (for negligence, for example) for failing to satisfy that duty.
Re:So when does it become criminal? (Score:2)
Patents aren't linked to criminal law the way copyrights are. The duty you mention is a duty in civil law.
When does it become criminal? When it crosses the line into fraud. And yes, it is possible for something like this to become fraud, especially if the royalties that come in from an affected patent are significant.
But that would be a separate proceeding, with different rules. And yes, I'd expect that a prof convicted of fraud would lose the appointment, tenure or no tenure.
PhD Supervision becoming real work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PhD Supervision becoming real work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Piss off your advisor and expect a less than glowing letter of recommendation. Rather than writing a blatent "...student X is a horrible researcher" they'll leave out crucial recommendations, making the student look like a lackluster potential hire wherever he or she might go.
I remember my days as a grad student working on my PhD in chemistry, and I saw this power first hand. And the professor didn't even have to exert it, just the fear of it being there was enough. I watched whole other research groups do EXACTLY what their professor said to do because of this power. Your entire career can be ruined before you even start because your PhD advisor continues to give you less than average letters of recommendation. When it comes to hire the student, who do you think the employer is going to believe? The student saying his advisor treated him or her like dirt, or the tenured professor? Unfortunately, the tenured professor wins just about every time.
Thankfully, my advisor would put our name on the patents that he did decide to pursue, but when the agreement was written as to who would get what percent of the proceeds (after the University took its share) my advisor would take the lion's share, if not all of it.
Ultimately, patent rights go to the creator of the idea, not who did the work. Patent law is so broken in this regard that all you have to do is prove the idea is your own and its original. Once you've done that, it doesn't matter who did the work to prove that the idea and claims would be valid, the patent rights go to the creator of the idea.
Is this a good thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, I would just like to caution those applying this law in college settings to make the system the least cumbersome as possible. Free-thinking is the backbone of our collegiate system.
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I think you should be able to patent your own ideas, but if they are not completely unique and unrelated to the work already done by the professor than you should not get all of the credit.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Having your name on the patent doesn't entitle you to anything. Most inventors never see a dime from the royaltees on their patents--it all goes to the assignee. If the school has an enlightened policy and if they actually own the patent, they may give students and researchers a cut of the royalties, but even then, they are not under any obligation to be fair about it--they might well decide only to reward professors and postdocs, no matter who is listed as co-inventor. If the research was sponsored by a company, often, none of the inventors sees any money beyond the grant.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Eric
Gotcha (Score:1)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:1)
> the Professor pays for all the equipment,
> helps the student work on their research or
> lets the student work on their projects, then
> when the student takes one of the ideas to the
> patent office he gets all of the credit for it?
More likely the UNIVERSITY pays for all the equipment, etc., and the professor takes all the credit.
If you're working for the professor, it's the professor's work and he/she should get the credit.
If you and the prof are both working for the University, the credit ought to be shared.
-Poot
It'll ruin higher education funding (Score:4, Insightful)
As it stands, if you can copy, and get away with it, you get the bit of paper. If the supervisor then wants to try patenting the idea, it's -them- that's heading for the boiling oil.
If the researchers might actually -earn- something off their work, then copying doesn't cut the mustard, and some real work might get done for a change.
However, we can't assume this. The reward system is not guaranteed to produce better work. Indeed, there is an excellent paper over on www.gnu.org that describes research which shows that the reward system can actually CRIPPLE real innovation and imagination.
Personally, I think that if Microsoft's fortune were split between America's schools, colleges and Universities, they'd be able to reduce the fees enough to have students to teach, and be able to pay teachers enough for them to have no desire to steal their student's work.
(With enough funding, America is capable of getting 60-70% of the population into higher education. If each of those people produced one piece of useful, innovative work, which was then their own to licence or free as they wished, could you imagine how far America could go in the next ten years?)
Re:It'll ruin higher education funding (Score:1)
What does Microsoft have to do with this?
Re:It'll ruin higher education funding (Score:1)
They'd provide the money.
Re:It'll ruin higher education funding (Score:2)
Re:It'll ruin higher education funding (Score:2)
Since the Upper & Middle classes have absolutely no interest in paying for the Lower Classes to learn anything (which would threaten their superiority complex), and since society needs understanding far more than it needs another Burger King, and since Microsoft is the only Corporation capable of expanding education to the needs of society, where else would you get the money from?
Re:It'll ruin higher education funding (Score:3, Insightful)
America has too many people in higher education now. Things that should be learned in high school are being pushed into colleges, where everyone is trying to get a 'business' degree.
Not everyone in the population can be a scientist or engineer. Someone has to actually drive a crane and someone has to weld that bridge together. Anyone with a desire and ability can go to college now. I do think that vocational training should increase, 'cause you always need truck drivers, farmers, welders, carpenters, gardeners, waiters, dishwashers, assembly-line workers,
Err... (Score:2)
I agree wholeheartedly that the ``everyone should go to college!'' mentality is ridiculous. A quarter of Americans go to undergraduate school. Many of them are idiots. I know, I tutor them. They think they're still in high school; they think they can copy and paste the pseudocode the TA posts on his site, and get away with not *actually* understanding the basics of C++. (UConn apparently requires freshmen to take the introductory programming course. Psych majors are not *meant* to take programming. *shudder*.
I know, there are exceptions... but I tutor. I'm exposed to high levels of Idiot Radiation on a twice-weekly basis. It's not pretty.
Come on, only a tiny percentage of those who go to college *now* produce anything useful or innovative. The rest sort of slide through like they did in high school. Why would we want to squeeze more unmotivated high school kids into college?
I'm all for anyone who truly wants to get a degree going to school. But a lot of people just don't care, and you can't make them. If you try, you get an eight-year high school.
-grendel drago
As long as students are not too proud... (Score:1)
What this thing condamns is no more than 'a robbery', not the fact that supervisors have some kind of paternity in the discovery.
Supervisor PHD's? (Score:1)
Interesting, but scary? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, as someone who advises students, I'm a little worried about the speculation that my students can now sue me and my institution for *any* action on my part that they perceive not to be in their best interest. What if a student feels that I talked him into working on problem X, but he would have finished faster and published more papers by working on problem Y? Can I get sued over that?
What are the limits of my legal responsibility? And more importantly, if I have a particularly risk-averse chancellor/dean/department chair, is this precedent going to chill the advising relationship between me and my students?
Re:Interesting, but scary? (Score:1)
Also, if I were in your shoes, I would not push a student to go for a specific solution but instead would show him the benefits of each choice and giving him my best professional opinion and not limiting his choices.
Re:Interesting, but scary? (Score:2)
As always, IANAL.
Fiduciary duties? (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, the scope of a fiduciary relationship is a question of state law (in this case, Illinois law), not Federal law -- a fact not brought out in the linked article. Thus, the panel is not only stretching the bounds of the fiduciary relationship, but also imposing liability based on its "best guess" as to what an Illinois state court would recognize. I am not aware of any Illinois opinion that holds that a professor is the fiduciary of his student (altho since I haven't looked at the question, I'm eager to be humbled by someone smarter).
Re:Fiduciary duties? (Score:2)
For instance, directors are expected to cause a company to take risks and maximize expected return while trustees are expected to preserve capital. The two main fiduciary duties a director owes a company are, IMHO: the duty of care (exercise proper care in the management of the company) and the duty of loyalty (no self-dealing.) The first is restricted by the business judgement rule which means, generally, that decisions made with reasonable information and reasonable rationality then the director can not be liable for it, unless it violates the duty of loyalty. Note that this allows for making dumb decisions, as long as they were made with reasonable information and rationally, as strange as that sounds.
I would think this sort of test would apply in the mentor situation as well: if the mentor acts carefully and does not self-deal then he/she is okay. In this case, the mentor clearly did self-deal: he kept the student's name off the patent so he would not have to share the credit and the royalties accruing to himself. This would clearly violate the duty of loyalty in a corporate setting.
In any case, these duties will be worked out over the next many years in the courtroom. If you are worried about them, though, remember that the primary duty of a fiduciary is to do what he or she has been appointed to do as best as he or she can. An act for which a fiduciary can be held liable is one that is considered a breach of trust. So, be trustworthy and you should be fine.
Conduct unbecoming a PhD? (Score:2)
This seems a bit too wide. I mean, anyone can give bad advice, including PhDs. Just because the adviser thinks the student should jump off a cliff with their stupid project, should they do so? Somehow the liability should be limited to that which is deemed "unbecoming", I think. Otherwise, next thing you know, undergrads will be trying to use this precedent to force professors to give them better grades, somehow.
Re:Conduct unbecoming a PhD? (Score:1)
Wet Blanket Comments and Questions (Score:2)
1. How often does this theft really occur? I mean, does it really happen all of the time? Really? Can you provide evidence? We've all heard stories, and some of us have seen it happen. Still others have experienced this problem. But, how often does it really happen?
2. I asked the first question for the sake of these questions. Given that students now have more legal power, will this impact the student-mentor relationship? That is, will people (mentors, Ph.D.'s, etc.) be more reluctant to take on students knowing that students might actually turn the tables and claim rights to their work? (Sure, it isn't likely, but follow the line of reasoning and think about what this powershift really means.)
3. Would there have been a better non-legal solution? I can't think of any. Still, I am curious if this kind of problem could have been handled outside the law system. (I think it is unlikely since patents are, by their very nature, tied to the law.)
Re:Wet Blanket Comments and Questions (Score:1)
Not very often, I don't think. Most of the faculty are decent people.
That is, will people (mentors, Ph.D.'s, etc.) be more reluctant to take on students knowing that students might actually turn the tables and claim rights to their work?
There are already more PhD students than we need, to the point where some schools "import" students because they can't get enough US nationals to apply. This isn't going to destroy PhD programs.
3. Would there have been a better non-legal solution?
A university policy that is consistent with the law would certainly help.
Both ways are trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
Six months later and no sucess we gave the project to a summer intern to look at while we found him some real work without much hope of sucess. We can back to take him for lunch to discover him with the newspaper out, the problem solved and complaining of being bored. In this instance the Director of the site took great pleasure in giving him full credit 8)
Moral of the story - brains usually win and any student with one good idea is likely to have more they will get credit for
How did he solve it? Attached a vaccuum to the end of the glass strand and sucked the ball onto it and sealed off the other end with superglue.
What this really means . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Now this will give universities and professors a justified excuse to force students to give up their rights to their patents. The courts have turned a gray area where students could escape notice into a very black and white one where universities will have the upperhand.
Oxford already does this (Score:5, Interesting)
Which means that I immediately have to stop work on any Free Software projects, because by licensing my work Freely I would be violating the university statutes. Since I'm doing research at the moment into computer networking -- and working specifically on transport protocol design -- this isn't exactly going to help further my research.
I'm trying to get the university to agree to let me release my work "if it will promote my research goals", but after two emails and a couple weeks without any response I'm a bit dubious about whether this will work.
Re:Oxford already does this (Score:1)
From my understanding of 'incidental', it means casual, subordinate, but still related. But IANAL, and I wouldn't want to have to get into a legal fight over it. Scary.
Re:Oxford already does this (Score:1)
I'm not clear that this follows. Why couldn't you release the software under your favourite license, and assign the copyright to the university, for example ? I believe there are others at Oxford who have released software, btw. (I develop fMRI software, and IIRC there's a group at Oxford that do the same) You may want to look into this, and contact them. Ah, here it is:http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~mark/
Cheers,
Re:Oxford already does this (Score:3, Informative)
If the university owns the copyright -- which, under their statutes, they do -- then I can't release the software under any license.
There is a clause which restricts University ownership of software to software "which can reasonably be seen to have commercial potential", but that doesn't really help much... I can't exactly send daily patches off to the university for approval as "not commercially viable".
Re:Oxford already does this (Score:2)
Re:What this really means . . . (Score:1)
No, grad students already assigned patents in most cases. This will require universities to put the student on patents they worked on.
Already common practice (Score:3, Interesting)
I seem to remember a case a few years ago where a student, wanting to benefit from his discover, had destroyed his university work, quit school, and then a year later finished his research. The school sued and won, on the charge that the student had committed the equivalent of industrial sabatoge.
The real problem is that advisors tend to steal *credit* for inventions, thus getting patent rights back from the university. This ruling just means that students don't automatically give their rights up de-facto to their advisor/department.
Re:Already common practice (Score:1)
hang on, I don't exactly know how the american education system works but surely the student pays to be at university, or someone pays on their behalf (ie grant from the gov etcetc) in most cases. if that is so then why does the student not have the right to their inventions. libraries won't sue you to be included on a patent just because you did some research form one of their books.
if the university gives the student a full scholarship then fair enough, if the gov gives the student a scholarship (does this happen?) then the patent should go to the gov to throw open as public domain.
however, if the student has paid their way though then why should they not own the patent?
dave
Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply require all mentoring professors to list once a year all patents that they are applying for.
Give the students a chance to review the list, and have a board to mediate any disputes.
Finally, have the same standards for academic honesty apply to the professors.
Re:Solution (Score:1)
I should begin by saying that many students are exploited by their mentors, and when this exploitation becomes extreme, there should absolutely be recourse.
However, in my experience it is not uncommon for students to overestimate their contribution to a project. In many cases, as a student you are expected to do a lot of the "heavy lifting" while the advisor helps guide the process. You trade your willingness to work for the opportunity to gain expertise by working with someone with more experience.
In reality, this ruling is unlikely to have a significant effect on the relationship. However, the mechanism the poster suggests would likely have a significant chilling effect on how profs use students. Mentoring students is rarely all wine and roses: sometimes the research is done more slowly, or less rigorously, or not at all. Adding increased levels of bureaucracy to this process just guarantees students will be passed over, and more experienced researchers used.
Re:Solution (Score:2)
But the graduate schools put our too many PhDs now anyway, because everyone wants to have a graduate program. Some of the schools even recruit primarily foreign students, because there aren't enough US nationals to fill all the spots! I doubt this case will kill the graduate programs.
Re:Solution (Score:2)
Well argued, but I disagree with the premise of too much bureaucracy and the chilling effect on research.
What I'm suggesting is no different than the full disclosure laws that public officials have to go though when they are placed on a sensitive board or regulator committee. These laws do work, and have stood the test of time.
I do agree that in pursuit of a PhD that there is a lot of tedious work. I've also seen it from the other side (growing up in a University town, and having a father who not only taught but headed departments), where the politics and the pressures to perform are very great indeed.
Simply using the full disclosure to inform all the students under you that you are applying for a patent tells them (1) what is happening with the research that you are doing, (2) where all the pieces go, (3) how your work might be used.
And on the flip side, if you don't disclose, you run the risk of more lawsuits, which only makes the lawyers happy.
Smartass University Response to Losing this Suit (Score:3, Funny)
"What? You want us to give you a free ride because you're student? Ah, but you see, you've imbalanced our entire relationship: You agree to enter into slave labor for us for several years, and in return, we get to keep the credit for anything you do.
"But since you want to take this patent developed while using our equipment, and our labs, it only stands to reason that you're prepared to pay for it.
"Let's see... you've got this judgement, and we'll subtract lab fees, utilities, maintenance (gotta pay the janitors to empty out the bit bucket)... hmmm... tell you what, just give us another $85,000 and we'll call it even.
"You mean you can't afford that? Well, surely we can work something out. If you'd be willing to work here a couple of years, I bet -- Put down the laptop Mr. Jones, you're scaring me a little..."
Re:Smartass University Response to Losing this Sui (Score:1)
ATTENTION MODERATORS: MOD PARENT UP +FUNNY! Geez, that just made my morning
Back to reality for a moment, what's the real potential for a scenario like this to play out? I suppose there might be cases where universities had students agree to obscure policies involving something like this, although if that's the case, it'd be on the student for not reading through all policies before signing on.
Re:Smartass University Response to Losing this Sui (Score:2)
The university generally gets paid by taking a very healthy cut of the patent royalties, no matter whose name is on the patent. This decision wouldn't change that.
It's probably more than $85K too.
Re:Smartass University Response to Losing this Sui (Score:1)
So, the question now becomes: now that universities can no longer allow this unofficial screwing, what policies will be put into place to make it official (and legal)?
Corperate sponsors (Score:1)
In the UK our industrial sponsors are more likely to screw us over than our supervisors.
Can't afford sue your supervisor? Try taking on Glaxo-Welcome!
This one time in grad school... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:This one time in grad school... (Score:1)
What is the use? (Score:1)
Some current students will get a bag full of money,
but all next generations will have to sign something
that waives their rights.
The only result will be a twisted working relationship (Is this yours or mine?).
Simply attribute all rights to the University would
be a better choice IMHO.
Most cases aren't so clear-cut (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of thing happens all the time in university research labs, no matter what field it's in. Part of the problem is that in certain fields, such as CS or engineering, research can be translated directly into dollars, which raises the stakes for protecting one's own innovations. But university politics being what they are, it's often very difficult for a student to distance him/herself from the advising professor. Sure, a student may sue a professor for falsely taking credit for an invention, but what good is that going to be if the department then refuses to grant the student a Ph.D.? Is the invention worth more than the lambskin?
Another wrinkle to this argument is that it's often rather difficult to really know who invented what. Even if a student does come up with something that the professor hadn't thought of, what's the likelihood that the professor had nothing to do with it? In other words, what if an adviser's guidance contributed to 95% of the student's way of thinking? In that, it's like taxes: nobody wants to pay them, because they feel that they earned the money and deserve to keep it. But how many people could earn the money that they earn without the help of the social/governmental/business infrastructure in which they live and work?
Graduate Student: Low Cost Labor (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, dwindling grant sources have placed even more pressure on the acquisition of funding. The universities view patent royalties as a viable alternative to grants within technological fields and most have "technology transfer" groups specializing in harvesting intellectual property from labs and transforming it into funds. This system effectively funnels discovery from a large number of faculty, staff, and students into business group independent of the inventors. Students seldom gain any profit from these activities. Furthermore, not all professors give priority to their mentoring resposibility. On the contrary, many professors treat students as temporary low wage labor to be used to generate data (to publish, write grants, aquire funding, hire students...). Even students writing grants are seldom given intellectual credit within their field. Credit is reserved for the professor by default and even a conscientious professor usually has difficulty time distributing credit.
A graduate student's long years of toil used to be rewarded with an academic position. Professors and students justified the inbalaces of credit a temporary phase within an academic career. This has changed. Today, academic opportunities are far more limited and a student is fare less likely to remain within academia. As a result, the student has in fact become temporary low cost labor. More conflicts will occur as students recognize this.
this is awesome (Score:1)
This is old and premature at the same time (Score:1)
Re:Buy her flowers, take her to dinner, (Score:1)
Information Wants to Be Free (Score:1, Insightful)
Damned if you do (Score:2)
There's a saying ... "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
Basically there was no choice in the matter. The guy had already stolen her invention and patented it himself.
So in this case she got fairly compensated for what she had created when its ownership was stolen off her.
PS, click the link in the blurb for this story and have a read. You might understand the case better if you do.
it doesn't matter (Score:2)
Excellent, but will this mean (Score:2)
Oops, student loans take care of that, never mind.
I'm glad someone put a blemish on the academic community for what amounts to "legalized theft", now if only someone could break the "At will Employee" crap the world would be a happier place, I think.
Supposedly slavery was abolished. Not really, it has just been wrapped up in legaleaze, sugar coated and put on a contract for education and corporation's use as a weapon against its own students/employees.
Yes, I admit we all have to prostitute outselves sooner or later, but at least give us the ability to change pimps!
Heh, pit one corp/campus against the other...beautiful.
This university/company will give me 50% *and* allow me to use their equipment for a dollar a year!
Oh, my mind *is* a terrible thing...hehehe
And I say... (Score:2, Interesting)
Who "deserves" the credit/ownership of a patent? (Score:4, Interesting)
A company/corporation:
- A corporation employs you and pays you a salary.
- A corporation does not charge you tuition or fees for use of its facilities.
- A corporation generally holds all rights to discoveries and inventions you make during your work with the company.
An University:- An University does not employ you or pay you a salary.
- An University charges tuition, lab fees, and graduate fees to use its facilities and personnel.
- An University generally holds all rights to discoveries or inventions you make during your research.
These two institutions are NOT balanced! I can completely understand and agree with a company which claims rights to a patentable invention you make during work hours and on work equipment. I can NOT understand how an University can even begin to claim rights, when the student is NOT employed by the university and PAYS to use their facilities! Any fruits of the student's labor are his- the University has already received their compensation - tuition!I'm having a very difficult time understanding how an organization being fully compensated for use of their facilities can try to claim IP ownership on things created with their service. That's roughly equivalent to paying the Property Owner of an office building a commission, based off of your company's profits, above and beyond your rent!
Re:Who "deserves" the credit/ownership of a patent (Score:2)
Any student who has expressly entered into an agreement with the University which compensates them for their work (pays for tuition, housing, salary, whatever) would, in my mind, be an employee of the University and the rights to innovation would justly fall in the hands of the University. It's the student's decision to enter that sort of agreement with the University that is so important.
Lemon educations are a dime a dozen. Anyone can buy themselves a degree from the college of their choice with little effort and even less learning. The dot-com phase left the world with plenty of paper CIS-degree holders, MCSEs, and CCNAs (among others) who completely lack the education expected behind their degrees.
In the case of most University research, it is done by graduate students shooting for a Masters' or Doctorate degree. In this plateau of the educational system, the lemon educations are far less common. A student does receive an education from doing their research, but the research is not their payment for the education: their tuition is their payment.
Of course that cycles back to students explicitly choosing to enter a contract by which they trade their research rights for monetary compensation, be it tuition, free housing, or a salary. For those who accept no such compensation from the University, I am glad to see some protection of rights to research imposed by the government.
A professor's Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I am posting because of the tone of many posts on this topic that imply that advisors routinely assume unjustified credit for the work their supervised students do.
I strongly disagree with that, and my experience as both a grad student and a professor gives me quite alot of experience in this area. I am a computer scientist and do systems research, which strongly selects for group work, so that is a factor here, but it is also a major area of dispute with respect to credit in this thread of discussion.
First, the student is not working in a vacuum. The assumption that the student is solely repsonsible for whatever they do it almost always nonsense. They join a lab engaged in an area of research. Their (slavish) salary is paid for by $$$ raised by the professor. Trust me, I did *not* get my PhD for the pleasure of writing grant proposals. Raising money is a painful way to spend time, but one cannot pursue most research ideas without it, and most students (me included) would not *get* their PhDs without a research project to fund them.
So, at the first level, the student's ideas are born in the context of the research group, group meeting discussions, and usually regular meetings with the professor.
Beyond that, most often the research topic is formulated in cooperation with the advisor, if not actually suggested by the advisor. Then the research is conducted under regular review and guidance by the advisor. All of this is a *lot* of work, **for the advisor**,and often goes more slowly than the advisor could do it themselves, but that is the process of education.I am happy to do it, but claiming that I am not contributing to both the idea being developed and to the student's education is simply not true.
However, when the student has an impulse (as I did when a student) to exclaim "Hey! Why should you be an author on this paper, I did all the work!" there is a simple test.
Consider the work that was done, and the group of people that worked on it. Now consider that same work and group as you subtract each individual from the group in turn and ask:
1) Would the work have turned out substantially
the same without the absent person
2) Could the "subtracted" individual have done
the work on their own
Without exception for my projects in the last 8 years the answer to #1 vis a vis the student is YES, I could have done the work myself or supervising another student, and the project would have turned out essentially the same. The answer to #2 is NO, the student would not have had a snowball's chance in hell of having the idea or of implmenting it on their own.
At this point in the conversationt they usually blush to some degree and agree that my being a co-author on the paper describing "their" work is entirely appropriate. About half of them suggest I should be the first author, but I follow the custom of putting the student's names first.
There are studnets that come up with a brilliant idea and develop it on their own. Then a sole-author paper is appropriate. Most of the time, given the discussion above, I would say that sole authorship is not justified.
To close the loop on the original issue, sole authorship by the professor is not appropriate either, unless the student literally ran all experiments as specified byt he professor solely for a salary.
I hope this made sense and seems reasonable but if not I will don my asbestos suit.....
What was the lower court thinking? (Score:2)
The law is VERY clear on the matter, as the circuit court mentioned. Being listed as co-inventor is very much a right of an inventor, and they threw it out because the inventioned would have to be assigned to the university anyway? Excuse me?
I think that the defense should have had to prove that the lower court hadn't been bought.