IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0304647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Navigating intellectual property (IP): A comparative analysis of Australian universities’ IP policies

Author

Listed:
  • Hamid R Jamali

Abstract

The push towards research commercialisation at universities has highlighted the importance of intellectual property (IP) policies in fostering innovation and guiding and managing research commercialisation activities. This paper undertakes a content analysis of intellectual property policies of all (37) Australian public universities, focusing on policy objectives, definition of IP, ownership of IP created by different creators, and distribution of net commercialisation revenues. It is found that all universities assert ownership over staff-created IP, particularly when related to employment or utilisation of university resources. For students, policies tend to balance their rights with university interests, with nuanced approaches for different types of student participation, but the focus of most policies was on postgraduate students engaging in research activities. While some policies had clear arrangements for IP created by visitors and affiliates and Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP), about a quarter of policies did not specify arrangements for these groups. Revenue sharing arrangements vary but generally award something between a third to a half of net revenue to creators, to both acknowledge their contribution and incentivise further innovation. Policies included a broad spectrum of objectives, from protecting and commercialising IP to fostering innovation and societal benefit, reflecting varying strategies across the higher education sector. Policies could benefit from further clarity in certain areas such as the rights of students or other creator groups. Research is needed to assess the effectiveness of these policies and their influence on innovation and commercialisation activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid R Jamali, 2024. "Navigating intellectual property (IP): A comparative analysis of Australian universities’ IP policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304647
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304647
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0304647&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0304647?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geuna, Aldo & Rossi, Federica, 2011. "Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1068-1076, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hans K. Hvide & Benjamin F. Jones, 2018. "University Innovation and the Professor's Privilege," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1860-1898, July.
    2. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, January.
    3. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    4. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    5. Munari, Federico & Sobrero, Maurizio & Toschi, Laura, 2018. "The university as a venture capitalist? Gap funding instruments for technology transfer," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 70-84.
    6. Catalina Martinez & Lydia Bares, 2018. "The link between technology transfer and international extension of university patents: Evidence from Spain," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 827-842.
    7. Arho Suominen & Matthias Deschryvere, 2024. "Barriers to immaterial property rights development in research organizations: an explorative study from Finland," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1935-1958, October.
    8. Jiafeng Gu, 2021. "Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & M. Ángeles Martínez, 2018. "Does technological diversification spur university patenting?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 96-119, February.
    10. Fabiano, Gianluca & Marcellusi, Andrea & Favato, Giampiero, 2021. "R versus D, from knowledge creation to value appropriation: Ownership of patents filed by European biotechnology founders," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    11. Christian Fisch & Tobias Hassel & Philipp Sandner & Joern Block, 2015. "University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 318-345, April.
    12. Riccardo Fini & Kun Fu & Marius Tuft Mathisen & Einar Rasmussen & Mike Wright, 2017. "Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 361-391, February.
    13. Giovanni Cerulli & Giovanni Marin & Eleonora Pierucci & Bianca Potì, 2022. "Do company-owned academic patents influence firm performance? Evidence from the Italian industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 242-269, February.
    14. Sabrina Da Rosa Pojo & Valéria Schneider Vidal & Aurora Carneiro Zen & Henrique Machado Barros, 2013. "Management of Intellectual Property in Brazilian Universities: a Multiple Case Study," Business and Economics Working Papers 182, Unidade de Negocios e Economia, Insper.
    15. Tischler, Joachim & Walter, Sascha, 2014. "Das Patentierverhalten akademischer Gründer nach Abschaffung des Hochschullehrerprivilegs," EconStor Preprints 96157, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    16. Anna Kochenkova & Rosa Grimaldi & Federico Munari, 2016. "Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 407-429, June.
    17. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    18. Pierre-Jean Benghozi & Elisa Salvador, 2014. "Are traditional industrial partnerships so strategic for research spin-off development? Some evidence from the Italian case," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 47-79, April.
    19. Hvide, Hans K. & Jones, Benjamin, 2016. "University Innovation and the Professor’s Privilege," CEPR Discussion Papers 11139, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0304647. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.