Cc-uk mailing list

["David M. Berry" <d.berry AT sussex.ac.uk>]

The policy was written this year, so it's not the case, as David Berry 

suggested in an earlier email, that things are getting worse. This new policy 

is actually clearer and more lenient than the previous one! 

Just to clarify a little. 

(1) I suggested that IP as it becomes more valuable will be more coveted by the University. At the moment, they do indeed try to hold onto patents and software as they are clear money spinners. However, this is a policy not law. The pressure on the Universities to find new revenue streams mean they will inevitably revisit their IP policies over the next few years repeatedly to see if there are any commercial possibilities. Policies can be changed. 

(2) I don't believe I suggested things are getting worse (whatever that means). Certainly I suggest that Universities under the present IP regime will continue to expand slowly but surely their revenue from IP licensing. That pressure toward revenue generation (i.e. profit seeking) will intensify IP concerns by the University. 

(3) Many Universities are getting involved in commercially sponsored research to make-up for research funding. These commercial operators do expect to own all the IP from their investment. Check out your policy again, does it say anything about IP when External funded? Usually it is a separate case from Internal production. 

(4) Companies are increasingly seeing Universities as R&D departments. The movement is already pretty advanced in the US (see Soley, L. C. (1995). Leasing the Ivory Tower: The Corporate Takeover of Academia. Boston: MA.: South End Press.) There is no reason to think it won't be happening here as the Government is keen for Universities to get into bed with corporations.

(5) Let's not make the mistake of extrapolating from one University, Tom. Reading might well have a good policy, I don't know as I haven't read it. But do they have a spin off IP company at http://www.rdg.ac.uk/RES/techtransfer/techtransfer_restricted/intellectual_property.htm and they sound awful commercial friendly to me. 

I spoke to told me that there are people increasingly looking into more

commercialisation of arts & humanities work, where currently it is deemed a

lost cause, and all under the government mantra of "knowledge transfer",

where proprietisation is seen as a better way of transferring knowledge to

industry. She cited one group that she is a part of that is working on this

 

(6)  This sounds extremely ominous to me. People 'looking into more commercialisation of arts & humanities work" can only mean copyright as patents and trademarks are usually not applicable here. 

(7) Commercialisation, propertisation, revenue streams, licensing income, etc etc etc... Doesn't sound academic, scholarly and certainly not in the collegiate tradition of sharing ideas and concepts for the creation of new knowledges. The world of education is changing and it is changing in a way that threatens academics and the way they have traditionally operated. Commercialisation and the academic pursuit of knowledge are in stark contradiction (one seeks to close to make money, the other to share for free) and unfortunately I fear that the massive pressures that money will bring to bear, with little or no resistance from University administrations or the Government (who are actively encouraging this huge untested experiment) will herald a strange new world of higher education infotainment. 

Cheers

David

 

On 9 May 2005, at 16:28, Tom Chance wrote: