If the Supreme Court gives universities greater control over the inventions created by their faculty and grad students, the Court should also require universities to publish metrics that shed light into how they are managing their invention portfolios. As the Stanford vs. Roche case makes its way to the Supreme Court, we will see a public and thorough examination of the nuances surrounding ownership of inventions created on university campuses. Good arguments that highlight what’s at stake have been made in favor of, and against Stanford, such as MIT’s amicus brief and Gerry Barnett’s ongoing analysis.
If Stanford wins, hopefully there will be consensus in the university technlogy transfer community on a least one issue: with privilege comes accountability. If universities enjoy complete control over anything invented by their employees, they should also commit to a transparent technology transfer process. Simple transparency is key. When I say metrics, I don’t mean that the federal government should add new reporting requirements to over-burdened university tech transfer offices. Universities already struggle to manage unfunded mandates that accompany federal funding (see the Goldwater Institute article on administrative bloat in universities– a data-based and very interesting read by JP Greene, Brian Kisida and Jonathan Mills.) Instead, we should implement a mandatory but simple system of checks and balances that’s based on data that’s already being tracked, or is easy to pull from the tech transfer office’s in-house database. Today’s software tools and database technology, combined with the Internet, make it simple to open a low-cost window into the inner workings of a university tech transfer office.
To read the full, original article click on this link: Managing university inventions: with privilege comes accountability « Triple Helix Innovation
