Difference between revisions of "University of Chicago"
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The University of Chicago had no | + | The University of Chicago had no standardized royalty sharing policy before 2002. In 2002, the university adopted its current License Revenue Sharing Policy. |
== Summary == | == Summary == | ||
| 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 32: | Line 33: | ||
''(b) 10% to the LABORATORY ("Laboratory share")'' | ''(b) 10% to the LABORATORY ("Laboratory share")'' | ||
| − | === Prior to 2002 === | + | === Prior to 2002: No Standardized Policy === |
| + | |||
| + | [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. | ||
''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. | ''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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://web.archive.org/web/20000817184726/http://www.uchicago.edu:80/docs/policies/provostoffice/intprop.html New Information Technologies and Intellectual Property (1999 University Senate Committee)] | ||
| + | |||
| + | A 1999 report from the University of Chicago Senate stated: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''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. Disputes about ownership should be resolved by the same faculty committee that resolves other disputes about intellectual property. | ||
== Relevant Links == | == Relevant Links == | ||
| Line 42: | Line 51: | ||
* [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] | * [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] | ||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20010411195703/http://web.mit.edu/committees/ip/policies.html MIT 2001 Comparison of Peer Institutional Policies] | * [https://web.archive.org/web/20010411195703/http://web.mit.edu/committees/ip/policies.html MIT 2001 Comparison of Peer Institutional Policies] | ||
| + | * [https://web.archive.org/web/20000817184726/http://www.uchicago.edu:80/docs/policies/provostoffice/intprop.html New Information Technologies and Intellectual Property (1999 University Senate Committee)] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:00, 4 June 2019
The University of Chicago had no standardized royalty sharing policy before 2002. In 2002, the university adopted its current License Revenue Sharing Policy.
Contents
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: No Standardized Policy
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.
New Information Technologies and Intellectual Property (1999 University Senate Committee)
A 1999 report from the University of Chicago Senate stated:
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. Disputes about ownership should be resolved by the same faculty committee that resolves other disputes about intellectual property.
