Cambridge split over new IP proposals

Copyright Andrew Dunn 2004

Proposals to strengthen the intellectual property rights of Cambridge University have set academics against each other, as rival factions fight over who should own patents: the university or the researcher. Opponents say the new rules, which lay claim to research regardless of where the funding comes from, will disproportionately affect science and engineering staff.

The fellows of the university have until Monday 12 December to cast their votes on the latest proposals, which also lay claim to internally funded research. A decision is expected to be announced by 14 December.

Since the 1920s, Cambridge academics have had rights to intellectual property arising from their research, a move said to be a major factor in the emergence of the Cambridge Silicon Fen, a region around the university that is home to several high-tech businesses. 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 will be hit hardest, says Mike Clark of the Campaign for Cambridge Freedom, a group seeking to amend the proposals. "Some aspects of the university will retain the right to earn extra money, whereas technologists won't," he told Science|Business. "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 say instead that the new rules seek 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 argues that by laying claim to work not funded by external bodies, the university will stifle academics’ freedom and ability to supplement their incomes. This, Clark claims, will 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," says Clark.

But Ian Leslie, Cambridge's Pro Vice Chancellor for research, says 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 asks.

Backing the moves

Sir Richard Friend, chairman of the school of physical sciences and a supporter of the proposals, points out that staff will 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 will allow 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," says Leslie. There is obviously support for this view, as several student leaders support the policy, but others believe 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," says 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 says.

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 argues, "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 is asking fellows to vote for an amended proposal that restores the historical right to ownership of their ideas and inventions within a framework that incorporates the "positive aspects" of the new proposals: copyright protection and arbitration of ownership disputes.