University Intellectual Property. Graham Richards

are initially not very significant, but once one reaches the national phase after a couple of years, then the costs become onerous. If the patent holder drops the patent at that stage then we have the worst of all possible worlds: as has been mentioned earlier the work is then unprotected, but the wider community has been alerted to its existence and possible value.

      Changing the culture was not achieved over night. In Oxford the system was modified in stages over a period of a dozen years so that now all work done by its employees and its students belongs to the university, albeit with the duty to exploit or, if not, let the employee have the IP.

      Cambridge took rather longer to reach similar conclusions and still does not lay claim to work by students. Although such an attitude may seem to be one of generosity, in practice it is a real hindrance to exploitation since there may be a residual fear that having funded a venture, it may be possible for a student to turn up claiming part ownership of patents. This fear can discourage inventors.

      In general, however, universities at last do have coherent policies on intellectual property and in-house professionals to negotiate royalties or equity shares in spin-out companies. The business world has at last realised that academics are not selfless saints, but prone to all the attitudes that can be found in the commercial world.

      It is equally important that academics understand the financial drivers of those in the business community with whom they have to deal. Venture capitalists are answerable to their own shareholders, not to the negotiating partners. A major company employee acts for his or her company in agreeing a deal and this must be remembered. So too, and it is helpful to be sufficiently aware, are some of the examples where things have gone wrong with disastrous results.

      Having set the scene, we will now turn to experienced practitioners to provide their individual insights.