Difference between revisions of "University of Chicago"
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
=== 2002 Policy === | === 2002 Policy === | ||
| + | [https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://polsky.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/v3revenue_distribution_policy_10-20-20161-1.pdf University of Chicago License Revenue Sharing Policy] | ||
''[T]he University through its intellectual property office, UChicagoTech, shall distribute the gross License Revenue the University receives for each INVENTION as follows: | ''[T]he University through its intellectual property office, UChicagoTech, shall distribute the gross License Revenue the University receives for each INVENTION as follows: | ||
| Line 33: | Line 34: | ||
=== Prior to 2002 === | === Prior to 2002 === | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://web.archive.org/web/20010411195703/http://web.mit.edu/committees/ip/policies.html MIT 2001 Comparison of Peer Institutional Policies] | ||
MIT compared the revenue sharing formula for many institutions, including the University of Chicago, in 2001. In this comparison, MIT found that Chicago had no standard policy in 2001. | MIT compared the revenue sharing formula for many institutions, including the University of Chicago, in 2001. In this comparison, MIT found that Chicago had no standard policy in 2001. | ||
Revision as of 11:23, 24 February 2019
The University of Chicago had no standard royalty sharing policy before 2002. In 2002, however, the university adopted its current License Revenue Sharing Policy.
Summary
| Institution | Start | End | Flat | $0-10k | $10-50k | $50-100k | $100-300k | $300-500k | $0.5-1M | >$1M | Fee | Lab | More |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Chicago | 2002 | 2017 | Yes | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
Policy Excerpts
2002 Policy
University of Chicago License Revenue Sharing Policy
[T]he University through its intellectual property office, UChicagoTech, shall distribute the gross License Revenue the University receives for each INVENTION as follows:
(a) 25% to the INVENTOR ("Inventor share")
(b) 10% to the LABORATORY ("Laboratory share")
Prior to 2002
MIT 2001 Comparison of Peer Institutional Policies
MIT compared the revenue sharing formula for many institutions, including the University of Chicago, in 2001. In this comparison, MIT found that Chicago had no standard policy in 2001.
In many cases, income generated from use of new information technologies in teaching and research may be small. Asserting ownership in such cases may discourage innovation without bringing significant revenue to the University. For this reason, we also recommend that individual faculty enjoy the revenue generated until it is substantial. As the University has recognized in the case of patents, individual faculty members are entitled to share in the revenues from the intellectual property they have a hand in creating. The share may vary from case to case, depending on the contribution of the faculty member as well as the costs incurred by the university and others. As a starting place, divisions of revenue should follow those already in place for patents and discoveries.
