And how is this different from an employer? The folks who pay the bills--pay for the labs and computers and lights and empty the trash bins--own the work. If you want to own your work, then work for yourself. Otherwise, that is the trade you make in exchange for salary, stipend, tuition, or whatever.

Okay so some research council gives the money for the research, and the the University gets the rewards? As far as I see it universities should be in the business of education and research, not profiteering. If anyone should own the IP it should be the taxpayers, it's originally their money afterall.

How does the U make a profit on your idea if it never sees the light of day? Doesn't the profit motive give the U incentive to get your innovations out to the world?

My point is that the Uni shouldn't be trying to make a profit on MY idea, I am a researcher, doing moral science for the benefit of the world, not trying to make a quick buck. I am never going to personally make an attempt to turn my research into a real world machine, rather I am saying "Hey Guys, look at the neat stuff this means we might do, look what it could do for the world, go make it!", and the whole idea of some guy sitting in an office somewhere, divining a myriad of different things the research could mean, and arbitrarily patenting them to make sure the university gets money, goes against my whole idea of what scientific study is about.

So expect people to carry that burden, then just give away the results at the end?

No, real world things have to cost money, to develop and make and run, the commercial enterprise of getting a product out to market and into use will always be profit driven.

The difference comes with the research and the science done to begin with, perhaps the distinction appears more subtle to others than to me, but I believe that all the research, done in the spirit of science and human improvement, should be available freely to the world, not locked up behind patent law and available only to the highest bidder.

As an example:

Extract from the University Of Manchester IP Ltd Website http://www.umip.com/university_policy.htm:

The University of Manchester, through the provisions of the Patents Act 1977 and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, owns the intellectual property rights (IPR) in patentable inventions, computer software, designs and other copyrightable material arising from the research activities of its staff.

The nett income from exploitation is shared with staff and their departments and in accordance with a reward scheme approved by the University's Board of Governors.

I am third year physics student in the UK, hoping to go on to do PHD work in one of the nuclear energy fields, most likely fusion research. The big thing that has worried me for a while is the possibility that I can make a discovery only to have the University I work for pounce on it with patents and copyrighting that prevent the unhindered use of that discovery to improve the world.

I'm not for a moment bigheaded enough to think I would make such a discovery personally, but the concept is a frightening one; the idea that a technology that could revolutionize some part of our world never seeing the light of day, because an academic institution is more interested in profiteering than in actually furthering the cause of science.

As a previous poster (RightwingNutJob) said "Moral science isn't about publishing (peer-reviewed) papers for all to see. Moral science is about understanding the world For the Betterment of Mankind."

Problem is investing in development of real world things from this research is costly, and not always successful. If before even starting on the research a company has to pay through the nose to license the idea, that makes said company less likely to bother in the first place surely?

Open Source University Anyone?