While I agree with everything you stated in regards to faculty level conflicts, I think the (UG and MS) student factors are understated because they are less likely to sue. Below is an excerpt from a manual on IP issues in technology transfer practice written by the Association of University Technology Managers:
While the main purpose of a university’s interaction with students is in the delivery of
education, there are times when these students develop intellectual property. These
inventions can occur, for example, when students are working on entrepreneurship
projects, when they are working in the lab as part of a research experience, or during
industry-sponsored Capstone projects. In some cases these inventions have real value,
and there are many examples of student activity—including that of undergraduates—
resulting in the formation of viable businesses. Unlike faculty and graduate researchers
whose contractual relationship with an institution tends be quite formalized, under-
graduates and masters students are not generally regarded as being employed by
their university in the traditional sense. Accordingly, student-generated IP lies outside of
the clear-cut employment context and raises a unique set of issues concerning ownership
and other IP-related rights.
Depending on the policy of the university, newly generated student IP may be construed
as belonging to either the institution or the student. In general, IP laws in each country—
particularly those whose legal systems are rooted in English Common Law—grant
default IP ownership rights to the inventor or author unless he or she knowingly agreed
otherwise. For there to be a legally binding contract, there must also be consideration.
That is, the university must give something in exchange for the student’s rights to his or
her invention. Thus university IP policy, when it comes to students, needs to be carefully
thought out, clearly worded, widely disseminated, and fair.