Intellectual Property

Normally, the owner of the intellectual property rights in a product will be its creator. So, the owner of copyright in a work will be its author, artist or composer the person entitled to register ownership of a patent will be its inventor.

As key institutions of intellectual endeavor, universities have a high intellectual output. When a lot of this output is scholarly in nature,some has commercial value. There is a broad selection of intellectual property that students build for the duration of their term in universities. This will range from copyright in assignments articles, theses, artistic, musical works or laptop or computer applications to patentable inventions and designs.

The question, which arises then, is that who owns the intellectual property that is therefore developed by students as a portion of analysis work for the duration of their stint in a university ? the student himself or the university? Frequently each university has its own Intellectual Property policy that governs the ownership and use of intellectual property rights in subject matter developed by staff and students. But guidelines and regulations regarding Intellectual Property developed by students can differ from 1 university to yet another.

Universities give different reasons for their claims on student developed Intellectual Property. These can be enlisted as follows: - Australian Universities take the plea of ?Commonwealth Funding?- Considering that the Commonwealth Government funds nearly all universities in Australia, ?It is a situation of this Commonwealth funding that universities need to abide by the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research, which charge each university with guarding its intellectual property.?

Universities also take the plea of their individual Intellectual Property Policies, which describe how their intellectual property is to be protected, how it is to be exploited, and how any rewards arising from this are to be shared.Some universities ask their students to assign any intellectual propertythey can create for the duration of the course of their scientific studies due to the following reasons: Students seldom develop intellectual property completely independently. For instance, in undertaking a analysis degree, they obtain analysis training (by way of supervisors). These staff (and therefore the University) as a result has a claim to the intellectual output of the student.

In addition, students seldom undertake analysis, which is entirely unrelated to an existing body of information. Frequently they make on work currently developed at and by the University. This is termed "Background Intellectual Property", which is regularly used, or referred to, in a student's project or thesis. This demands to be recognized when ownership of intellectual property developed by a student in the course of his candidature is below consideration. Students commonly use University facilities and University resources in undertaking their analysis. This also supplies a claim by the University on any output. A variety of a occasions students are portion of a team whose work, at least in portion, does external funding help. This external funding is the subject of a contract among the University and the funding party. The contract also offers with output. For the University to be in a position to negotiate with the funding party it need to represent all staff and stude nts involved. For this to take place students need to formally agree that the university represents their interests.

Certain universities argue that considering the fact that they give their students with aid in administrative, legal, monetary and commercial regions and save the students of from negotiating with shrewd analysis financers by entering into negotiations with such financers themselves they desire a ideal more than intellectual properties created by students. Universities claim to own intellectual property that students and staff build is probably to be partially attributable to government policy on innovation. If the Government policies of a certain nation emphasize the importance of innovation and intellectual property protection, then the universities can respond with corresponding policies of their own. Some universities claim that in searching for students? assignment of their intellectual property their aim is to engage them into a partnership with the University, whereby the University can represent the student?s interests in any negotiations with third parties. Any intellectual property developed by the student can then be jointly exploited to the mutual benefit of both the student and the University. Frequently where the Universities get that they can't derive any benefit from the intellectual capital, they waive the claim in the ownership of the intellectual property and assign back the ownership rights to their creator.

Ownership problems - Who owns and How? - Universities have their own Intellectual Property Committees to appear into different matters relating to intellectual property problems as and when they arise, and also to aid and tips the students, staff and so on. They also have principles for sharing the net income received by them from the commercialisation of intellectual property, i.e. how they are to be divided amongst the university and student and so on. The strategy that each university takes to ownership of intellectual property that the student?s build can be diverse from each other. According to Ann Monotti they can safely be put below the following classes (models) as follows: - ,

Model A: Student Ownership Subject to agreement to the contrary, students own all intellectual property that they build. Beneath this strategy the university can negotiate with the student as and when it feels necessary or suitable.

Model B: Categories and Conditions of creation Strategy Ownership of intellectual property is split among students and the university according to categories and circumstances of creation of intellectual property. The usual strategy is for the students to own all intellectual property, but agree to assign to the University such factors as inventions created in the course of project activities or 'a patent worthy discovery or invention in respect of which the university has created a specific contribution of funding, resources, facilities or apparatus' or inventions created in the course of a supervised project.

Model C: Conditions of Creation Strategy. Ownership of intellectual property is split among students and the university according to circumstances of its creation. So the University owns all student IP developed in certain circumstances and Students own all IP except those which were developed in the agreed specific circumstances.

Such circumstances below which a university claims involve work developed:-a.) in the course of scientific studies b.) working in a team c.) utilizing university resources or facilities d.) students working in collaboration with yet another researcher, a analysis team or an outside body e.) use of pre-existing intellectual property.

Model D: University Ownership Beneath this model the university owns all intellectual property developed in pursuance of scientific studies and utilizing resources or facilities, material and so on. of the university. The study concludes that 1 of these models is in use by all key universities in Australia. Studies have also been conducted in Canada , which also show the practice of universities following any 1 of the above kinds of approaches towards ownership of student developed Intellectual property.

Irrespective of whether or not a university should really try to acquire interests in the intellectual property developed by students remains a philosophical 1. The universities who claim ownership more than student's Intellectual properties give the argument of the different types of relationships existing among them and the students. Some say the connection is that of a contractual nature, some say it is of a legal nature, others term it as 1 of employment. It is these legal problems that determine the ambit of claims to students? intellectual property.

The contract camp (i.e. those who believe that the connection of a student and university is that of a contractual nature) say that when the students, sign a document or enter into an agreement with the university they accept the university policies as a precondition of their attendance of that institution. Though this document can not at occasions tend to discuss intellectual property matters straightaway. At occasions either the policies are referred to straight or the student agrees to abide by the guidelines of some assortment of student handbook. The student handbook would then, in turn, make the student bound by the university policies. So in brief this position states that the incorporation of university policies into these documents would bind the student to the terms of the university policies (like terms regarding intellectual property ownership). Authorities have come to accept that the legally enforceable connection among students and private universities and col leges is contractual. However the strategy towards the connection in public universities is not so clear.

The employment camp treats a selected class of students such as say graduate students who obtain university stipends or those undergraduate students who are employed as analysis or teaching assistants, or those graduate or undergraduate students receiving some type of scholarship or stipend as employees. Their belief is that, by paying the student for his or her time, the university creates an employment connection that entitles the university to the ownership of that student?s work product. But there are certain tests to determine the presence of such a connection and most abovementioned classes of students fail on 1 or the other counts.

In India the law regarding student?s ownership is not clear. This can be considering that of the reality that there are exceptionally couple of instances (virtually negligible) of disputes among students and universities regarding intellectual property problems. Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, lays down that ?the author of the work shall be the 1st owner of the copyright?. But it also gives certain exceptions such as that of work accomplished below a contract of employment or a public or government undertaking.

For students who get a scholarship from the university they are enrolled in, the argument of getting in a connection of employee or apprentice can be taken by the university, for claiming IP developed by them. Furthermore if the university happens to be a public undertaking, then also it can claim IP developed by students. But otherwise unless the guidelines explicitly specify, or there exists a contract to the contrary, the student owns his work as his intellectual property. The scenario can become clear when instances arise in the region.

Students enroll in universities with the ambition of developing analysis expertise, pursuing academic excellence and advancing their own and possibly the general boundaries of information in their field of study. In the course of their connection with the university machinery, students create massive amounts of analysis, like important documentation and scholarly writings.

Like all creative thinkers they really feel a sturdy sense of ?ownership? of the results that unfold in the course of analysis and scientific studies. This instinctive reaction accords with the legal position. As it can nicely be seen there is no clear consensus as to how the intellectual property ownership is treated by universities, which can be related to the reality that there is presently no uniform legislative regime regarding such policies.

Till then in the absence of any agreement or employment connection that defines where ownership of intellectual property vests, the legal position is that students own all the intellectual property that they build. A university has freedom to negotiate with a student to agree to assign ownership of intellectual property. The important problem is how, and below what circumstances, this agreement should really be sought. Considering that a university neither demands nor can justify claiming every thing that a student creates in order to give a doable signifies of catching intellectual property that can otherwise fall by way of the net of specific agreements. Not only are there legal risks to validity but the action also creates a poor instance of public relation and sets the educational function of the university on a collision course with the function to exploit intellectual property. The major aim therefore need to be to determine legitimate interest of the university that demands it to own the student intellectual property and to institute procedures for the specific agreements of certain nature.

Even the use of wide ambit claims, say for instance, for postgraduate students only is greater seen as supplementary to the agreements and should really be confined, if used at all, to specific and restricted circumstances. Though such a step does not guarantee validity but the probabilities of harmony and enforcement need to boost when there is time for explanations and opportunities for correct consensus. Arrangements need to be created to negotiate agreements on a case-by-case basis as they arise. Furthermore the establishment and maintenance of joint student-faculty panel that discusses intellectual property problems and evaluations the policies on a typical basis need to be accomplished.