Open 2013:   Intellectual Property Policies: What are universities saying?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Open 2013: Intellectual Property Policies: What are universities saying?

on

  • 287 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
287
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
286
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://bumc-devhpp.ad.bu.edu 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Open 2013:   Intellectual Property Policies: What are universities saying? Open 2013: Intellectual Property Policies: What are universities saying? Presentation Transcript

    • * Of the top 25 Entrepreneurship schools; a Rhetorical Perspective
    • *I’m a serial entrepreneur, sensei, consultant, coach, Phd student, andMom. I admit, this paper is a draft, a pilot study of my dissertationand I was still editing this last night.
    • * Since the advent of the Bayh-Dole Act, universities have sought to capitalize on potential intellectual property.* “Universities are increasingly considered to be important contributors to the knowledge economy and to national competitiveness” – Anderson & Rossi (2011)* “Although the genealogy of the term intellectual property is a matter of some controversy, most commentators agree that the term has only recently been used as a way of grouping together the four most commonly discussed intellectual property rights – copyrights, patents, trademark, and trade secrets – under one label.” –Biron (2010) *
    • * “Policy rhetoric may be powerful since it affects how individuals understand the world and aims to move audiences to action. This action may include persuading audiences to accepts constructions of reality and truth as well as causes of action that perpetuate inequity.” – Winton (2013)* “In the rush to establish innovation competitions, place industry projects in the classroom, and create incentives for students to develop and commercialize their own ideas, universities may overlook the impact of their intellectual property policies.” – Evans (2011) *
    • * How many of the 25 institutions claim IP and to what extent? What categories emerge?* How does the context and wording of the policies differ and what might be inferred by the language? *
    • Retain No IP Claim Faculty IP as a Condition of Claim All IP with Significant Claims All IP Employment Resource UseSyracuse University, only Brigham Young University University of South California University of Houstonspecifically funded projectsUniversity of Missouri University of Arizona Washington University in St Louis Baylor UniversityUnder RevisionBelmont University Drexel University Northeastern University Miami University – OhioUniversity of Wisconsin - Madisson University of Maryland College Park University of Oklahoma University of Utah Bradley University University of Dayton City University of New York Baruch Texas Christian University Oklahoma State University
    • * Invention: Arguments that support the position* Disposition: Manner in which the document is organized* Style: Word choice, arrangement, figurative language, conventions of writing* Memory: Shared cultural memory* Delivery: The manner of dissemination *
    • * The policies establish a rank and order; a hierarchy.* The policies also create very rigid restrictions; a reality of employment and education that rests within the functional culture validated through the casual cousins of law; policies. *