IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2605.22632.html

Position: The Pre/Post-Training Boundary Should Govern IP in Industry-Academia ML Collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk Bergemann
  • Soheil Ghili
  • Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov

Abstract

Industry-academia ML collaborations routinely fail to launch -- not for scientific reasons, but because academics must publish while companies must protect models trained on proprietary data, and no standard contract framework resolves this tension. Because contracts are negotiated by legal departments alone, many apparent legal disputes are incentive misalignment problems that only scientists at the table can correctly diagnose. We propose PBOS (Protect-the-Business / Open-Source-the-Science), a community-adoptable contract template anchored to a single technically-grounded boundary: pre-training artifacts (architectures, training code, benchmarks, untrained weights) are open science; post-training artifacts (weights trained on proprietary data) are business IP. This boundary is technically meaningful, legally clean, and auditable -- and could not have been drawn correctly without scientists at the negotiating table. We argue the ML community should adopt PBOS as its default contract for such collaborations.

Suggested Citation

  • Dirk Bergemann & Soheil Ghili & Nitzan Mekel-Bobrov, 2026. "Position: The Pre/Post-Training Boundary Should Govern IP in Industry-Academia ML Collaborations," Papers 2605.22632, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2605.22632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.22632
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    2. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Lin, Jenny X. & Lincoln, William F., 2017. "Pirate's treasure," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2021. "The scholarly impact of private sector research: A multivariate analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    5. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2020. "The relative impact of private research on scientific advancement," Papers 2012.04908, arXiv.org.
    6. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2009. "Patent disclosure and R&D competition in pharmaceuticals," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 467-486.
    7. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    8. Wan, Liyang & Wan, Qian & Yang, Zichao & Zhao, Ying, 2026. "Judicial institution and innovation: Evidence from China's intellectual property courts reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    10. Mukherjee, Arijit & Stern, Scott, 2009. "Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 449-462, May.
    11. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    12. Joel Blit & Mauricio Zelaya, 2015. "Do Firms Respond to Stronger Patent Protection by Doing More R&D?," Working Papers 1501, University of Waterloo, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2015.
    13. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    14. Aydogmus, Ozgur, 2022. "Increasing returns and path dependence in knowledge creation and their effects on the dynamics of patent pools," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 467-477.
    15. Yin, Nina, 2023. "Pharmaceuticals, incremental innovation and market exclusivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Su, Zhongfeng & Wang, Chenfeng & Peng, Mike W., 2022. "Intellectual property rights protection and total factor productivity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3).
    17. Yong-Gil Lee, 2010. "Sectoral strategic differences of technological development between electronics and chemistry: a historical view from analyses of Korean-invented US patents during the period of 1989–1992," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 83-92, January.
    18. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    19. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman, 2015. "Patent Rights, Innovation and Firm Exit," NBER Working Papers 21769, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Tedi Skiti, 2020. "Institutional entry barriers and spatial technology diffusion: Evidence from the broadband industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(7), pages 1336-1361, July.

    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:arx:papers:2605.22632. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.