Cambridge academics vote for new IP plan

Cambridge University is tightening its grip on the rights to intellectual property (IP) generated by staff and students. The university announced today that academics had voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new IP policy that will see the university take the intellectual property rights generated by staff regardless of where funding came from.  The vote was held on 12 December.
 
The debate over the policy has waged for weeks, setting academics in the university at loggerheads. Supporters argued that Cambridge was merely getting in line with other institutions and providing a level playing field for all academics and students.

Critics said the policy could destroy the culture that created Silicon Fen, the region of high-tech businesses around the university. But the majority of Cambridge academics who voted disagreed, with 80 percent (790 of the turnout) voting in favour of the new policy.  
 
Sir Richard Friend, head of the department of physical sciences and a supporter of the new policy, said : "Of course I am delighted with the outcome, we have to be seen to be running our own shop. Our job now is to make sure that we dispel those concerns that were reasonably expressed by some people."
 
Mike Clark, of the Campaign for Cambridge Freedom, which fought against the proposals, said the ballot had to be put in context: "Out of 8,500 employees, 4,246 were eligible to vote. So approximately 74 per cent did not express an opinion, whilst only 18.6 percent voted in favour of the policy and 6 per cent for the amended policy and 1 percent against either policy."

Since the 1920s, Cambridge academics have had rights to intellectual property arising from their research. In 2001, the policy was changed so that the university had rights to externally funded research, by charities, research bodies or companies, except when agreed otherwise.

Science 'hit hardest'

Science and engineering would be hit hardest,  Clark told Science|Business during the campaign. "Some aspects of the university will retain the right to earn extra money, whereas technologists won't," he said. "Academics in arts and humanities will have the right to the royalties from a best-selling book, for example, but the university will demand a share in inventions by technologists."

But supporters of the proposals said instead that the new rules sought to recognise all inventors and protect junior staff and students, who might otherwise be railroaded by distinguished heads of department who go on to make millions from an idea.

The Campaign for Cambridge Freedom argued that by laying claim to work not funded by external bodies, the university would stifle academics’ freedom and ability to supplement their incomes. This, Clark claimed, would hamper recruitment of the best staff, who would otherwise be put off by low pay.

"They will have the same poor salaries but far less control," said Clark.

But Ian Leslie, Cambridge's Pro Vice Chancellor for research, said this argument "rather overlooks the fact that the vast majority of research is externally funded in any event". Altough he does admit it will hit hardest the roughly 3 per cent of academics who come across a brilliant idea without the need for sponsorship. "The new policy would mean that these researchers now have to tell the university what they are doing. Why should those few who stand to make huge amounts of money have different rules to anyone else?" he asked.

Backing the moves

Sir Richard Friend pointed out before the vote that staff would still have the opportunity to make extra money. "Consultancy remains completely outside the knowledge and control of the university and we are not restricted by the university to the time required."

This centralisation of control over patent rights allows the university to arbitrate in disputes. "We feel rather exposed, because these issues go to court. Without the new policy, the university can do nothing about that," said Leslie during discussion around the proposal.

Support for this view was not confined to academics. Several student leaders supported the policy, but others believed the changes could jeopardise the system that has produced Silicon Fen.

"Because students won't be able to take their IP with them so easily in future, the university could lose the most entrepreneurial students," said Clark. An internal survey revealed that around 30 per cent of patents filed in the area were filed by academics or companies linked to the university. "This would all change as the university seeks to take ownership of all IP. Silicon Fen could not happen under the new policy," he said.

But Leslie says that the new Cambridge policy is similar to those of Stanford and MIT, both of which have been just as successful in spinning off companies. By contrast, he says Oxford student IP policy is "draconian": Oxford claims all student IP. Under the Cambridge proposals, the new rules will apply only to students working in collaboration with others.

Under the system, the university will distribute a share of all income from IP to the inventors; the proportion varies according to the total income, and whether the Cambridge Enterprise, the university's commercialisation arm, is involved. Inventors do not have to use the new system if they wish to set up a new company themselves. They are free to go their own way for a fixed royalty payment of 15 per cent.

But Clarke argued, "The so-called rights of the inventor are misleading. The university owns the patents and can sell or license the rights. Control is largely, I think, dependent on influence and status."

The Campaign for Cambridge Freedom had asked fellows to support an amended proposal that would have restored the historical right to ownership of their ideas and inventions within a framework that incorporated the "positive aspects" of the new proposals: copyright protection and arbitration of ownership disputes.