Vice-Chancellor speaks out on IPR

In the past, the University of Cambridge has been criticised for failing to commercialise its best inventions through not having a professional approach to IPR. At the same time it has also received plaudits for developing the Cambridge Phenomenon and creating successful partnerships with business in such a way that it is recognised as the great hope for the future of the British economy.

The recent plans therefore to introduce a unified policy on IPR for the primary reason of stimulating spin-offs has been greeted with a predictable mixture of relief and outrage in equal proportion, depending on how people view Cambridge's success in this field to date.

Those feeling relieved have long felt that the University has either not exploited its entrepreneurial assets successfully, or frittered them away in many a poor deal struck by unwitting scientist who have been out-manoeuvered by hungry industrialists. The outraged believe that any statutory IPR policy will harm creativity, contribute to a brain-drain and destroy the golden goose that is known as the Cambridge Phenomenon. They also strongly object to the university owning 'their' IPR, and taking a share of income that they believe to be wholly theirs.

There is also perhaps a third group of people who haven't made up their minds about the policy proposals in terms of the merits of stimulating research. But they do believe that people who make a good deal of money from commercialising inventions that have been achieved on the back of government grants and in University laboratories should indeed give something back to the University and to the Department concerned.

From where I stand, I wear numerous hats - not just as Vice-Chancellor, but as a former research engineer, head of a department, former head of an IBM research group, inventor, and industrial director. I think I have heard the arguments from every angle and I come down strongly on the side of the new proposals. So let's look at the arguments:

1. Will the new policy harm the Cambridge Phenomenon?
The evidence here does not stack up. The universities in the world with the strongest record of entrepreneurship, Stanford and MIT, and the leading UK universities, UCL, Oxford, Imperial, all have more restrictive policies on IPR than we are proposing. No one can say their entrepreneurial activities have been harmed by their policies. It is also important to be realistic about the role the university has played in the Cambridge phenomenon - it is important, but we could do much more. Few university spin-offs have progressed beyond small and medium-sized enterprises, and There are many others where the deals entered into with business have failed to realise the full potential of what were brilliant ideas.

2. If the University owns its academics' IPR, they won't have any incentive to invent anything any more?
Not so. The academics will rightly still have the lion's share of income (90 per cent up to £20,000). After that, a sliding scale applies, and at the very least they will get a third of the income, with a third going to their departments and a third going to the university. This seems fair to me, and will probably seem generous to most people who have ever worked in industy. The new policy will justify continuing university investment in patent, business and copyright advice, and protect academics from the major pitfalls that so many of them have fallen into before.

3. Academics won't be able to put free software on the web any more?
Yes they will. The new proposals are not designed to inhibit the publication of public domain software - or similar forms of software - which we know play such an important role in software development. We agree that by and large the inventor is best placed to know when to give away software. However, the university's technology transfer office is still critical in overseeing the contract, ensuring that the terms of the "give away" are communicated properly, and protecting the inventor (and the University) from risk and liability issues associated with unwarranted products.

4. And in the worst case scenario, the policy may create a brain drain?
If the implication here is that American universities will snatch up our unhappy scientists, I would like to know where they would go instead. Even MIT and Stanford have more restrictive IPR policies that those we are proposing. If some academics choose to pursue an industrial career fully, rather than juggle an academic career with their business interests, then I think our loss will be the economy's gain. They may well get a higher salary too, but if they think that any company will give them a third of the value of any IPR they generate, then they are in for a big shock!

Professor Sir Alec Broers

An abridged version of this article appeared in today's Times Higher Education Supplement

Image: Photo Disc