Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While universities are intensely protective of revenue streams related to intellectual property interests for the institution and professors, the financial and legal interests of students in the entrepreneurial process have largely been overlooked. This lack of attention, both in universities and in the literature, is intriguing given the mushrooming growth in entrepreneurial education courses in almost every U.S. university. This article builds and reflects on an original article by Katz, Harshman, and Lund Dean where the authors advocate for establishing classroom norms for promoting and protecting student intellectual property. We present research, insights, and reflections from Professor Katz regarding the controversial ethical and legal issues related to student intellectual property in university settings and provide suggested resources for faculty traversing these issues.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship innovation ethical issues in management education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldini

Grimaldi

Sobrero

(2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70, 333-354.

Barnett

(2012, February 8). And all your student ideas are belong to us, too! Research Enterprise. Retrieved from http://rtei.org/blog/2012/02/08/and-all-your-student-ideas-are-belong-to-us-too/

Boh

W. F.

De-Haan

Strom

(2012). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 3, 1-9.

Chesbrough

(2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33-58.

Davis

(2014). How the Maker movement is moving into classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/maker-movement-moving-into-classrooms-vicki-davis

Fine

C. R.

Ottavio Castagnera

(2003). Should there be corporate concern? Examining American university intellectual property policies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(1), 49-60.

Goldfarb

Henrekson

(2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639-658.

Katz

Harshman

Lund Dean

(2000). Nondisclosure agreements in the classroom: A student entrepreneur’s refuge or risk? Journal of Management Education, 24, 234-253.

Kenney

Patton

(2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, 40, 1100-1112.

10.

Lach

Schankerman

(2008). Incentives and invention in universities. Rand Journal of Economics, 39, 403-433.

11.

Litan

R. E.

Cook-Deegan

(2011). Universities and economic growth: The importance of academic entrepreneurship. In Kauffman Task Force on Law, Innovation, and Growth (Ed.), Rules for growth: Promoting innovation and growth through legal reform (pp. 55-82). Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

12.

Little

Reid

Litton

(2013). Intellectual property issues arising from business ideas generated by undergraduate students. Southern Law Journal, 23, 249.

13.

Luppino

A. J.

(2009). Fixing a hole: Eliminating ownership uncertainties to facilitate university-generated innovation. UMKC Law Review, 78, 367.

14.

Macfarlane

(2012). Re-framing student academic freedom: A capability perspective. Higher Education, 63, 719-732.

15.

McMurtrie

(2015, November 8). Universities set up legal clinics to help student innovators. Chronicle of Higher Education, 62(11). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Universities-Set-Up-Legal/234094?cid=cp1

16.

McSherry

(2009). Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Monotti

A. L.

(1999). Allocating the rights in intellectual property in Australian universities: An overview of current practices. Federal Law Review, 27, 421.

18.

Monotti

A. L.

(2000). Maximising the benefits from intellectual property in universities: Awareness of our rights and obligations. Australian Universities’ Review, 43(2), 23-31.

19.

Nelsen

(1998). The rise of intellectual property protection in the American university. Science, 279, 1460-1461.

20.

Patel

S. H.

(1995). Graduate students’ ownership and attribution rights in intellectual property. Indiana Law Journal, 71, 481.

21.

Perez-Kudzma

(2007). Fiduciary duties in academia: An uphill battle. Idea, 48, 491.

22.

Pilz

B. C.

(2012). Student intellectual property issues on the entrepreneurial campus. Michigan Journal of Private Equity & Venture Capital Law, 2(1). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199592##

23.

Smith

H. E.

(2007). Intellectual property as property: delineating entitlements in information. The Yale Law Journal, 116(8), 1742-1822.

24.

University of Washington. (2015). PO, Executive Order No. 36, Patent, invention, and copyright policy. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/PO/EO36

25.

Williamson

B. L.

(1994). (Ab) using students: The ethics of faculty use of a student’s work product. Arizona State Law Journal, 26, 1029.

26.

Winkel

(2013). The changing face of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51, 313-314.

27.

Zagier

(2011). Want To record A lecture? Think again. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/want-to-record-a-lecture-_n_1100130.html

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB