Auburn University Senate Meeting
July 8, 2003
3:00 p.m.
Members Absent: Willie Larkin,
Chair-elect; Debra Cobia, Secretary-elect; Barbara Struempler, Immediate Past
Chair; Dennis DeVries, Fisheries & Allied Aquaculture; Nelson Ford, Management; Robert Ripley,
Aviation Management and Logistics; Joseph Buckhalt, Counseling and Counseling
Psychology; John Saye, Curriculum & Teaching; Karen Rabren, Rehabilitation
& Special Education; Barry Fleming, Art; Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication
Disorders; Andreas Illies, Chemistry; Darrel Hankerson, Discrete and
Statistical Science; Bill Hames, Geology and Geography; John Pittari,
Architecture; Scott Fuller, Building Science; Daowei Zhang, Forestry &
Wildlife Sciences; Thomas A. Smith, Human Development and Family Studies; John
Rowe, Nursing; Mike Reinke, Clinical Pharmacy; Jack DeRuiter, Pharmacal
Sciences; Jesse LaPrade, Cooperative Extension Service; James Bannon,
Agricultural Experiment Station; Thomas W. White, Air Force ROTC; CPT Ted McMurtrie,
Navy ROTC; Dean June Henton, College of
Human Sciences; Interim Dean Rebekah Pindzola, College of Liberal Arts; Dean T.
R. Boosinger, College of Veterinary Medicine; Dean Larry Benefield, Samuel Ginn
College of Engineering; Interim Dean John Jahera, College of Business; John
Pritchett, Acting Provost; Sheri Downer, University Librarian; Kathy Harmon,
A&P Assembly Chair; William Gale, Steering Committee; Chris Rodger,
Steering Committee; Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee.
Members Absent (Substitute): Curtis Jolly (Norbert Wilson), Agriculture Economics &
Rural Sociology; Christoph
Hinkelmann (Mark Bertus), Finance; James Kaminsky (Paris Strom), Leadership and
Technology; David Pascoe (Bruce Gladden), Health & Human Performance;
Rhonald Jenkins (David Cicci), Aerospace Engineering; Robert Weigel (Don Buck),
Foreign Language and Literature; Virginia O’Leary (Barry Burkhart), Psychology;
Paul Schmidt (Greg Harris), Mathematics; Ralph Henderson (Saralyn Smith-Carr),
Vet Clinical Science; Mike Solomon (Carol Warfield), Consumer Affairs; Steve
McFarland (Jo Heath), Acting VP/Dean for Graduate School; Wes Williams (John
Fletcher), VP for Student Affairs.
Call to Order
The meeting
was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by the chair, John Mouton.
John Mouton, Chair of the Senate: I would like
to call the meeting to order. Today’s agenda has two Action Items and then an
Information Item. I have exchanged a
couple of e-mails recently with people.
What we have been doing recently, and what we are going to continue to
do, is major items that the Senate needs to deal with we will bring to the
Senate as an Information Item first B and then
later on, after we have had discussion, we will bring it back to the Senate for
action. So, we have got one Information Item and two Action Items. First business of order is the approval of
the minutes. They are on the Senate homepage, and these are the minutes of June
10, 2003. Are there any corrections or
additions? There being none Y the minutes are approved. President Walker could not be with us today,
so representing the President=s office will
be Michael Moriarty, Vice President of Research. Dr. Moriarty Y
Announcements
Michael Moriarty, Vice President of Research: Thank you,
John. This was not an opportunity that
I sought Y and Don Large
is back there with a smile on his face, as I drew the short straw today, so I
am making the presentation. Dr. Walker
wanted me to mention several things to you.
One of which, and these are in no particular order, but one of which is
the SACS Accreditation.
SACS Accreditation: The accreditation visit has been
postponed until spring of 2004. The
reason is that the attorney Richard Bradley=s report is not complete, and we have urged him to be
expeditious in completing that. But when that is completed and it goes through
the process and then SACS looks at that B and we look
at that B and have a
chance to respond, then the accreditation visit is set for the spring. Linda Glaze is here, who has much more
detailed knowledge if anyone else has specific questions about the SACS
issue.
Budget: We are preparing the University Budget predicated upon the
assumption that there will be a 6.34% reduction in last year=s appropriation. This was a guidance that Governor Riley gave
us some time ago. Now what happens on
September 9, when the referendum is held, obviously, no one knows Y but we are carrying this in what
we think will be the worst-case scenario B at least we
hope this will be the worst-case scenario.
We plan to make a budget that hopefully might be enhanced rather than
reduced. We are in the process, which
you undoubtedly know, of budget development. The faculty, and the
administrative professionals, and the staff are being recommended for different
salary increases within the departments and the units.
The Provost Search: President Walker has invited Dr.
Thomas Hanley, the Dean of Engineering at the University of Louisville. He has
invited him back for a second visit. I
do not know when that visit is scheduled for but I suspect that it is going to
be sometime later in July, but I don=t have any
specific dates that I have been informed of.
At that time, he will be meeting with the various campus groups and the
Board of Trustees. I was unaware, until
I was informed by President Walker, that apparently there is a policy at Auburn
University that both the Provost and the Athletic Director and obviously the
President, need to have Board approval associated with their appointments. The rest of the administration, obviously
don=t rise to that
level. [Laughter] B no pun intended. [Laughter].
Those were the three (3) topics that the President asked me to convey,
and I will be happy to try and answer any questions.
John Mouton: Conner, would you please go to the
microphone?
Conner Bailey, Steering Committee: This was not
addressed in your comments, but we did discuss this at the last Senate meeting
at some length, a Discussion Item that had to do with the fate of the Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station, which represents some hundreds of faculty of
this campus. I am sure that you are
aware, and Don Large is aware, and others here in the room are aware, that the
Agriculture Experiment Station is indeed in financial crisis. My department is faced with either gutting a
graduate program or pulling the telephones and Xerox machines and computers and
everything else for our O&M budget B or maybe
making a staff reduction that might affect people who have been here without
tenure for twenty plus years. In other
words, my department and many other departments are going through some very
difficult times Y when not too
long ago, I heard our President say that we are in the best financial position
we have been, as a University, for a very long time. So, I am wondering why it is that the Agriculture Experiment
Station, certainly in the College of Agriculture and the departments there, are
going through this kind of crisis where we are being allowed or forced to into,
when the rest of the University doesn’t seem to be having this same problem.
Michael Moriarty: I was not at the last Senate
meeting. I participated in some of the
discussions associated with the Experiment Station. The Cooperative Extension,
we might add, has the same type of situation.
For those of you who might not know Y I will capture it in a nutshell. When we get appropriated money from the State for salary
increases, particularly Division I, the Main Campus may add money to that
appropriated amount, in most cases, deriving from tuition dollars. The Experiment Station and Cooperative
Extension do not receive any tuition dollars. In order to match that same level
of salary that would be provided, the faculty has to basically go into their
budget and reduce their budget in order to come up with those extra funds. That is the historical case B the way this is budgeted on this
campus. As you know, there is a proposal that went before the Board last time
for a B I=m not sure if I have the right
terminology, so don=t hold me to
it B but an
incentive for people to take retirement or resignation from the Experiment
Station, which will address a short-term problem but not a long-term
solution. This is from my perspective,
and I am not speaking for the President on this one B from my perspective, a long-term
solution is going to be the Experiment Station and the Cooperative Extension
are going to have to redefine their mission in order to begin to cope with the
realities with the finances that we have.
Anybody else? Don, do you have
anything that would add or clarify that?
Don Large, Executive Vice President: I don=t know, but I think [Inaudible]
Conner Bailey: May I
follow-up?
Michael Moriarty: Conner Bailey is doing follow-up.
Conner Bailey: Dr. Moriarty B or maybe Dr. Large could answer this. Has any consideration been given, any plans
in place, to alter this historical pattern of funding Experiment Station and
Extension Systems B as if we were separate entities rather than, in
fact, faculty on this campus, doing very faculty-like jobs? Have any plans been put in place or discussed,
for incorporating the faculty in Divisions III and IV Experiment Station and
Extension System and to treat us budgetarily under Division I B which is where the rest of
our campus colleagues are budgeted B where we would have the
same treatment regarding budget, including with tuition dollars, because we do
teach as the rest of the campus?
Michael Moriarty: You are probably not going to like my
answer, Conner. It is going to sound
evasive, but it is as honest as I can make it.
The suggestions that you have made, along with others, to address the
problems were put on a table for a lengthy series of meetings that involved the
Director of Cooperative Extension, the Director of the Experiment Station, and
various administrators. Everything was
put on the table for consideration. The
short answer is that, yes that has been considered. I am not in a position at this point, with my knowledge, to tell
you what is going to happen with this [Inaudible].
Don Large:
That committee that met, discussed probably ten (10) different options,
and there is simply no way to resolve this matter in a discussion in a Senate
meeting Y as it took
probably five or six meetings of several hours and still some uncertainty as to
how to best approach this. We do get
down to varying arguments and good points on any number of areas of this
issue. One issue, of one side, can
argue that the State has historically separately appropriated for Main Campus,
for AUM, for Ag Experiment, for Cooperative Extension B separate State appropriations.
This is what
the State wishes to have in this area.
Let=s take
Agriculture Experiment B these are the
dollars, and we want you to provide services to us for these dollars. So, then
the question gets to be that when those dollars begin to get scarce B and you have got personnel and
other programs attached to those dollars B and they
start being reduced B what do you
do? Do you try and live within the
means of the State and what they have appropriated B and said that this is the
dollars to provide the service? Or do you say, no B we are going to solve that by
adding tuition dollars to help cover this, because it is so important B and certainly a lot of things
that are done are very important.
The other side
of the argument says, you know B and hopefully
by most people=s judgments B you can agree that is one valid
way to look at it. Another very valid
way is the way Conner suggested B look these
are all faculty people that are being affected, and why are they being treated
differently because of their funding source than faculty on the rest of the
campus. That is a point to argue with as well. It can be argued that it is
similar to Research. If you have the dollars, then we have the salaries
attached to those. If you don=t, then the
dollars go away and you have to make adjustments.
So, there were
a lot of issues. There were issues of
how many Experiment Stations are needed.
There is our historical way of providing the services to the State that
still make sense in this day and time.
There were a lot of discussions there.
I am sure that John Jensen could share with you a summary of all of the
issues that were discussed and a lot of the views. So where are we? The President right now has said that Option One
is the one that he thinks is the most appropriate. The State has said B these are the funds to provide
the State with a certain level of agricultural experiment research and that is
the budget that we should try and live with.
So you have seen the first step of trying to do that by offering the
retirement incentives. Depending on how
that plays out, I guess, relooking at how to go to the next step of how do you
balance or rebalance the budget B or do you
start looking at Options B, C and D? I guess you do B but right now, it is still a
matter in transition and there are no easy answers. If we solve Division III or Agriculture Experiment Station on the
back of Division I Main Campus B solved
initially a problem here B but you may
well create a long-term problem over here.
So, it is not just a simple answer, and I wish I could give you one B but I can=t.
John Mouton: Anyone else? Thank you Dr. Moriarty. I
have a list of the outgoing Senators. Every year, of course, we have elections
for three-year terms across the University. [List projected onto screen]
Ag Econ Curtis Jolly
Aviation Mgmt Bob Ripley
Entomology Gary Mullen
Economics Richard Beil
CCP Joe
Buckhalt
Curr &
Teach John Saye
Rehab &
Special Ed Karen Rabren
Aero Eng Rhonald Jenkins
Civil Eng Brian Bowman
Textile Eng Roy Broughton
Comm Disorders Sridhar Krishnamurti
Psychology Virginia O=Leary
Chemistry Andreas Illies
Geog &
Geol Bill Hames
Clinical Sci Ralph Henderson
Forestry Daowei Zhang
Consumer
Affairs Michael Soloman
Nursing John Rowe
Pharmacy
Practice Mike Reinke
AAES Jim Bannon
ACES Jesse
LaPrade
Outreach Clint LeNoir
Navy ROTC Ted McMurtrie
What I would
like to do is just take this time to thank the Senators who are listed here as
outgoing B for their
service to the Senate and also for their service to the other departments. Are any of the outgoing Senators here? Please stand. Thanks to all of them. [Applause]
Those of you
that were at the last Board of Trustees meeting Y there was a lot of discussion back and forth about the
commitment in regard to a Five-year Plan B moving
faculty salaries to the regional average, moving the tuition of our students to
the regional average. Well, that
Five-year Plan is basically complete, and so the University is now putting
together a Five-year Planning Commission to develop, implement, monitor, and
make adjustments as needed B a plan for
the University. In my observation, this
is one of the most complicated things to do is to make some kind of reasonable
budget forecast within which you can plan.
I think that it is real sketchy right now to make a determination about
what the revenue is going to be at Auburn University. If essentially we have
two sources B we have the
State appropriation and we have revenue that is generated by tuition to support
it. How high that tuition goes [Inaudible]. In any case, as we start looking at
this B if things are
not finalized when we have had discussions about faculty representation on the
Commission B the current
discussion is that there are eleven (11) members on the Commission, of which
five (5) would be faculty members. As
it progresses, and I think that it will progress fairly rapidly, we will be
going out for nominations and volunteers for people to serve on this
Commission. It may be one of the most
important things that the University does.
So, it is a tremendous need that we have for some exceptional
individuals to contribute to that process. One of the things that I will say of
[Inaudible], is one of the real challenges is that we are not going to get
representatives from every discipline, from every college, or from every
activity on campus. We are going to
trust the few people who go there to represent all of our interests, and the
interests of our [Inaudible]. So, you
may see some things upcoming before that committee that actually [Inaudible]
until September. As we move forward, we have got Rules Committee Meeting July
23rd and depending on what we know then, we may be coming out before
the next meeting [Inaudible].
One of the
things is if you look at the Board of Trustees schedule; there is an August 29th
meeting and a September 26th meeting which are really pretty close
together. One of the things, of course,
without the budget being resolved, is that there are some questions in making
it happen. Right now, and I talked to
Glenn [Howze] right before the meeting, we have got a tentative meeting
scheduled for August 1st and it looks like it is going to
happen. So, there is going to be a
Board of Trustees meeting on August 1st B and I think
with a relatively small agenda. But
that is how they will decide whether the August 29th meeting can
occur. My guess is that with the vote
on the referendum coming on September 9th, we probably will see the
September meeting and maybe not the August meeting.
The other
thing that we have is August 26th, which is a Tuesday at three o=clock B is I guess the second calendar
week of class B Governor
Riley is going to be on campus to speak, and obviously wants to speak about his
tax and accountability referendum. The
way this came to pass, is that the Executive Committee had decided that we were
going to ask Governor Riley to come and speak at the Fall Faculty Meeting B and really what we want to get
him to speak on is B we want him
to speak on is the state of higher education and what is Auburn=s role B in regard to the way the
governor perceives it. When we asked
him to come speak on September 16th at that meeting, he asked for
the opportunity to speak to not only the faculty, but whoever we care to invite
about the tax referendum for that. We
have had a discussion, and I think that we are going to invite him back for the
Spring [Faculty] Meeting. We are going to invite him back in March, but we
still want him to talk on that topic.
We want to be able to talk about higher education [Inaudible]. But anyway, on August 26th, which
is a Tuesday at three o=clock in the
afternoon, Governor Riley is going to be here at our invitation to speak. One of the things that this discussion
[Inaudible] about educating [Inaudible] B I have read
through the tax and accountability measures on the referendum, and there’s a
lot of discussion back and forth about how much do we know and how informed are
we. I guess my thought is, after
listening to all the discussion that I have heard is that while that measure is
not specifically targeted at higher education, Auburn can certainly be impacted
by the outcome of the referendum. We
made great strides in our University over the years, but we basically are
connected to the State. They say that
the rising tide floats all of the boats Y and I thought
about recently, does that mean that the lowering tide puts us all in the
muck? It is in our best interest for
the State to fly rather than drift and flounder. Anyway, the current budget guideline, as was mentioned,
anticipates 6.34% reduction in State funds.
If the referendum fails, then there may be some impact that has to be
absorbed within our budget.
The last
comment that I have is that I don=t know who all
has been tracking the trustee nominations.
They have interviewed about half of the candidates, and they will have
another interview session on Saturday B I think this
coming Saturday. They are going to get fourteen to fifteen more
interviewees. Evidently, they have a couple
of people that they could not schedule at either time, and they will interview
those people plus any other nominees [Inaudible]. So, the [Inaudible] is that there will be a Special Session
probably in September, and the [Inaudible] that I hear is the trustee
nominations should be in place so that action can take place during that
Special Session and hopefully get resolved so that we have permanent trustees
sometime in early fall.
So, that is my
announcement, and I would be glad to entertain any questions or comments. Do we
want to do the Action Items next?
Action
Items
John Mouton:
This is the only copy that I have that is readable. Oh, thank you.
Caroline Dunn, Chair, Academic Standards Committee: As noted in
the agenda, the Academic Standards Committee is presenting today two (2) action
items that concern changes in course load policy. The Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs, Linda Glaze,
requested on behalf of the Associate Deans and herself, that the summer
full-time and overload hours policies be changed. Briefly, the current policies were proposed during the semester
transition. Now that they have had a
couple of years to examine enrollment patterns, they feel that a couple of
changes need to be made to refine the policy.
Specifically, the first request is that the maximum load for
undergraduate students during the ten-week session, or any combination of the
summer sessions, be changed from 13-hours to 14-hours. The justification for this request is that
it allows students to take a three-hour and a four-hour course during each
summer term.
John Mouton: Why don=t you go ahead and read the other one and then we will Y
Caroline Dunn: The second request is that with the Dean=s approval, the maximum number of
hours students can take be changed from 20 to 22 during the semester and from
15 to 17 during the summer term. The
justification for this request is that the original policy didn’t take into
account that many courses are four-hour courses. Specifically, I guess, within the last couple of summers, they
have had to process a lot of requests that they feel could be handled more
appropriately through the Dean=s Office.
John Mouton: Because these recommendations come from
a Senate committee, we don=t have a need
for a second. What I am going to do is B I am going to read, we need to
deal with them individually. The first
one is noted to say:
Change in the full-time summer loads. “The maximum
load for students and undergraduate curricula is 18-hours during the semester,
7-hours during the five-week session and 14-hours during the ten-week session
of any combination of summer sessions.”
Is there any discussion or comment? Are we ready to vote?
John Mouton: All in favor B signify by saying Aye.
Senators: Aye
John Mouton: Those opposed B Nay. [No
opposition.] Thank you.
The second change is the change in overload hours. “On approval of the Dean, students may
schedule overloads not to exceed 22-hours during a semester, 17-hours during
the summer term, and 9-hours during the five-week session.” Any comments or questions?
John Mouton: All in favor B signify by saying Aye.
Senators:
Aye
John Mouton: Those opposed B Nay. [No
opposition.] Passed. Thank you.
[Both proposals passed on a voice vote.]
Information
Items
John Mouton: Now, Dr. Moriarty, you get a second
turn.
Michael Moriarty: As John mentioned, the format of the
Senate is to present items, particularly complicated items, first for
discussion and then subsequently for action.
The issue that is in front of us today is a proposed revision of the
Patent Policy at Auburn University.
What I would like to do first is to put this in a context so that you
can understand the situation that led us to where we are today. The policy at Auburn University was drafted
and approved in March of 1974, which was twenty-nine years ago. Given the time in which it was written, it
is remarkably complete, but it is quite general in its language and doesn’t
offer a lot of guidance for faculty and administrators in terms of implementation. Toward the end of Bruce Gladdens= term as Senate President, we
asked Bruce to help us revise that policy and appoint members from the Senate
to serve on a committee to that end.
The committee that was put together has the following membership. [Committee
membership list projected onto screen]
Patent Policy Revision Committee
Senate Appointees
Jim Barbaree,
COSAM
Byron
Blagburn, VetMed
David Bransby,
Agriculture
Randall Clark,
Pharmacy
Howard Thomas,
Engineering
Patent and Invention Disclosure Review
Committee
Henry Baker,
Chair, VetMed
Mary Cupp,
Agriculture, Nontenure Track Faculty Appointee
Ralph Zee,
Engineering, Assoc. Dean for Research Appointee
Other
Mickie Jacob,
A&P Appointee
Ty Harbuck,
Graduate Council Appointee
Helen Carol
Thompson, Staff Council
Jan Thornton,
Tech Transfer
Five members
appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, we added three members who sit on the
Patent and Inventions Disclosure Committee because we have worked with this
Patent Policy every day, faculty members who would have an appreciation for the
issues. Because the current policy and
the proposed policy, relate to faculty and other employees and students, we
added a representative from the Administrative and Professional category, and
appointees from the Graduate Council representing graduate students, a member
of the Staff Council, and Jan Thornton, Director of our [Technology] Transfer
Office, to serve as Advisory to the Committee.
When I mentioned that this was appointed toward the end of Bruce
Gladdens= term B that gives you a sense of the
time that this committee has been working B it has been
working, and I would say diligently for the better part of a year and a half or
two years. Looking at policies that
exist elsewhere and looking at issues that exist here at Auburn University, and
trying to come up with a policy that will in their view and in my view, meet
the needs of Auburn University and the faculty here in going forward into the
future. What I would like to do now is
to turn it over to Henry Baker, who chaired this committee to lead you through
the major issues that are in this policy, most of which give structure to the
existing polices, and as I said before, provide guidance. I will emphasize at the onset, that nothing
to do with revenue distribution has changed one iota. The revenue distribution that exists now is what is proposed in
the current policy. No change. Henry, let me turn it over to you.
Henry Baker, Chair, Intellectual Property and Patent Policy
Revision Committee: Thank you, Mike. As Mike told you, the existing policies of
the one that we are operating under currently is nearly 30-years-old. [Policy projected onto screen]
Existing Policy
$ Approved March 15, 1974
$ Income distribution amended August
1993
$ Disclosure required
$ Assigns rights to IP
$ Changes in organization not recognized
$ Some provisions vague
$ Not contemporary
Having said
that, and I don=t know who the
officers were, but I thought they did a remarkable job, [Inaudible] complete,
not going to detail policies for [Inaudible].
A revised policy that you are being asked to consider is nearly
[Inaudible]. This doesn’t mean that the
existing policy is defective or deficit – but simply not very complete. There was an amendment to the existing
policy in 1993, thanks to Bill Muse, who asked the Board of Trustees to revise
the income distribution that favored the faculty. So, thank you, Bill Muse. The
basic elements are in the existing policy B namely the
mechanism of the disclosure by the faculty for potentially commercially viable
discoveries and an assignment of rights to the Intellectual Properties to the
inventors and the University. Over that
30-years, there have been changes in the organization of the University and
those are not reflected in the current policies. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, there was not
recognition of a need to revise the current policy to meet those changes. Probably, the most dangerous part about the
existing policy is its vagueness in certain areas. By being vague, it invites controversy. It is an open invitation for lawyers to get between partners who
disagree. It is my belief that the
current policy would not stand a lot of scrutiny with a legal battle. Finally, if you look across the country
about what is happening in the academies of our contemporaries B the current policy simply does
not meet the contemporary standard. Dr. Moriarty invited these members to
participate in the Revision Committee. [Committee
membership list projected onto screen]
IPP Policy Revision Committee
Byron
Blagburn Mickie
Jacob
Jim
Barbaree John
Owens
David
Bransby Howard
Thomas
Henry
Baker, Chair Ralph
Zee
Randall
Clark Jan
Thornton, OTT, Advisory
Mary
Cupp Helen
Thompson, Staff Council
Ty
Harbuck
Most of those
are your faculty colleagues, and most of them are experienced in some area of
Intellectual Property, in Patent, activities.
Every one was sincere in their representation of you B the faculty, the A&P staff,
and the students in developing the revised policy. Yes, it took us a year and a
half. We worked diligently. We met every two weeks B sometimes for two to three hours
at a time, and I believe and I hope that I can justify this B we came out with an incredible
product. There are several of the
committee members here now, David Bransby, Ralph Zee, Byron Blagburn B did I miss anybody? Everyone was invited and a lot of the people
had conflicts. John Owens was a member
of the Committee for about 90% of our work before he left the University, and
he made a very fine contribution to our work, as a whole. Ty Harbuck, a graduate student, as I can see
he really did a remarkable job. He was
interested. He was savvy. He had input, and I was very pleased. Jan Thornton served in an advisory capacity.
She knows the nuts and bolts of operation of the Office of Technology Transfer,
and we frequently asked her to participate more in the decision making, which
she refused to do. But in the way of supporting
the Committee and working through some of the details, she was a great
help. Those committee members who are
here, if you want to comment or add – please do.
One of the
earliest things that we did in trying to get a handle on what is contemporary,
is to review the existing Patent Policies in the top twenty universities in
terms of Intellectual Property income. [Projected
onto screen]
Search of Existing IPP Policies
Clemson Texas A&M
Cornell SUNY
Duke Yale
Florida
State Washington Univ
Harvard Univ. CA, CO,
FL
MIT Univ.
IL, MI, Penn,
NC
State Pitt,
WA, WI
Some of those
relate well to our university and some of them are in a different
category. We looked carefully at what
they had, and we borrowed freely from what they had that we thought was
applicable to our climate B our Auburn
University community. We didn’t take
one and cut and paste willy-nilly. We really did a thorough examination of what
other people were doing, and how that might relate to what we were doing.
What has
happened over the 30-years that makes the current policy fundamentally sound
but not contemporary? One of the major things was the Birch Bayh and Bob Dole=s (Bayh-Dole Act) enactment of a
federal law that not only encouraged universities but gave universities the
opportunity to own Intellectual Property.
Major Changes
$ Bayh-Dole Act of 1980
$ Auburn Foundation to OVPR and OTT
$ Dramatic increase in IP activity at AU
$ Increased complexity of agreements
$ Improve
commercialization
$ Management of conflicts
$ Provide for revision, arbitration and
appeal
That set off
an entire new era in the academy. Not that a lot of the universities weren’t
doing it, but it simply set the stage for the opportunities that we now
enjoy. The original policy, and this is
one of the issues that I pointed out, where there has been re-organization,
depended on the Auburn Foundation as its nucleus for the administration of Intellectual
Property. As you know, before Mike
Moriarty, there was an organization in place, but it was functionally almost
non-existent. After Mike came, he
recognized a need to establish an organization in his office that would
strengthen the University=s acquisition
of Intellectual Property, and the commercialization of that property, and all
of the things that modern contemporary universities do. Since that time, there has been a dramatic
increase in the amount of disclosures, the amount of Intellectual Property that
has commercial value and therefore has been protected. I don=t have the
numbers, but [Inaudible], do you have any [Inaudible]? The disclosure numbers went from five to
forty-two or forty-three a year. The
Patent Committee is really quite accurate in reviewing those disclosures. So,
it=s actually a
new day in terms of the policy, but really a new day, in terms of
function. In addition to that, the
commercial interests were fat, dumb, and happy in the old days, because they
could take what Intellectual Property that we developed and commercialize it
and essentially steal it from the university.
Steal is a harsh word, but that is what they were doing. Since we have become savvy, they have
recognized that they now have to deal with us in a more complicated and a more
complex way. In addition to the Office
of Technology Transfer=s function in
receiving disclosures and determining what should be protected, there is an
added new function, which is extremely important and which has really taken off
in the past two to three years B and that is
to find commercial partners; opportunities to commercialize the Intellectual
Property that we own.
The other
things that have been added to the new policy; number one is Conflict
Management. Again, because of the
complexity of what is going on today compared to what was going on 30-years
ago, where faculty members are going out and starting new companies, based on
university owned technology. It is a
good thing. It encourages
innovativeness B but it also
creates a possibility of conflict. So
the management of those conflicts is important and it is an important component
of the revised policy. The revised
policy also provides for revision, arbitration, and most importantly B appeals.
What did the
Revision Committee try to accomplish?
Well, let me just talk about what we wanted to achieve. [Projected
onto screen]
IPP Policy Revision Goals
$ Recognize importance of IP
$ Create a document that will serve AU
$ Complete and unambiguous
$ Inform, define procedures
$ Protect rights
$ Encourage continued generation of IP
$ Place AU in competitive IP stature
First of all,
we wanted everyone, our faculty, colleagues, staff, and our students to
recognize the importance of Intellectual Property, in terms of what it does for
the University. And what it does, is to allow the University to be recognized
as the major research university that we want to be recognized. So, that was part of what we wanted to
incorporate into the policy B to inform
people about what is important about Intellectual Property, not only it=s economic gain, but its
translation of university faculty discovered Intellectual Property to benefit
society. It is really a critically
important thing about what we do. We
also wanted the document to serve Auburn University. As I pointed out, we looked at many other polices from other
universities, but many of them did not fit our culture. We wanted this policy to be an Auburn University
policy and really fit what we do. We
wanted it to be complete, and we probably worked as hard on that as we did
anything B it is what
took us so long. Because we would
occasionally recognize that there was something that needed to be addressed
that wasn=t
addressed. We also wanted it to be
unambiguous, so there wouldn=t be any
question raised, either in the mind of a faculty member or an employee that
would question what the University=s policy,
procedure, motives and authority might be.
It is clear that we wanted to inform people about the details and define
very carefully the procedures that one is obligated to use in order to fulfill
the obligations of the policy. A major
goal, obviously, was to protect the rights of the faculty and employees, and
there are many ways that our proposed policy did that. Mike mentioned that there is no change in
the income distribution, and that is true in a sense, but the committee wanted
to re-distribute the University=s portion of
the income in order to encourage the continued growth of our Intellectual
Property effort. Now whether or not the
Board of Trustees will accept that recommendation or whether Mike will have the
courage to approach them is up to him.
Finally, our
ultimate goal was to place Auburn University in the top tier of research
universities with respect to Intellectual Property. The entire policy is on the web. https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/patent_policy_v12.htm
It
doesn=t
make for exciting reading; however, I would encourage each of you to read it
carefully. Read it with an open mind,
understanding that we are faculty like you.
We are not out to short-change or cheat anyone. We want a sound policy that everyone that
can agree is worthy of your support.
Both the existing policy and the new policy are on the web, and I would
recommend that you read it and if you have questions, ask any of the Committee
members. I, for one, will volunteer my
time to discuss anything that anyone wants to about the policy. I would be willing to entertain questions
now, if you have them.
Michael Moriarty: Just
one comment beyond what Henry mentioned.
As many of you know, there has been a Discussion Board that has been put
up at the request of the Senate officers that is linked from the Senate
homepage and from the Research page that is a forum for faculty, students, and
staff to post questions or concerns on this proposed policy. The way that I am proposing to proceed is
that the Committee that has been working on this diligently for several years B
and again this was populated in a large part from the Senate B
that Committee would take as input, the result of the discussion today, and the
results of the postings that occur on that discussion forum, and any individual
comments that committee members may have, and some have suggested that faculty
or others might want to make to the Committee themselves. That input would be then put back into the
Committee for deliberation, out of which would come a policy that would come
back to the Senate B ideally at the September meeting.
John Mouton, Chair of the Senate: Do
we have questions or comments?
Kem Krueger, Pharmacy Care Systems: When I was discussing this document with
some of my colleagues, they raised some questions. One is for clarification on the Consulting Section, which appears
under Section Five, I believe. Yes, Section Five, Subsection H (5.H). The concern was this B
often times, we may be asked to come into a hospital pharmacy to do
consulting. There is no tangible
product that is really comes under that consulting agreement, but it=s
standard language that says that anything that develops as a result of this
interaction would be the property of the hospitals. Now, it appears that that would be a direct violation with this.
So, does that mean that basically we are going to have to run every consulting
agreement through the office?
Henry Baker:
I believe that is standard.
I think to protect yourself, as well as to protect the University,
anytime that you engage in consultation, you have to number one, submit a form
that requests your opportunity to do a consultation and then the consultation
agreement itself needs to be passed through the Office of Technology Transfer
(OTT) for its legal ramifications. Isn=t
that correct?
Michael Moriarty: The current policy [Inaudible].
John Mouton: Dr. Moriarty, could you speak into the
microphone please?
Michael Moriarty: As I understand it, the current policy for
consulting, the UPO-10 so to speak, those forms when completed go to the
Provost Office as opposed to the Research Office.
Henry Baker:
Does that answer your question?
Kem Krueger: So, is that the way it will continue or will
it come through the Y?
Henry Baker: It will come through
the Office of Technology Transfer. Jan
Thornton is an attorney, and she and her staff do consultation agreements
several times a day. Sir, would you use
the microphone?
Roy Broughton, Textile Engineering: I
don=t
think that quite answered the question.
The question was B it didn=t answer it in my mind anyway B the question was B
do you have to run your consulting language -- standard Ado
not disclose@
language -- through the ... [It] does
not require a UPO-10, as I understand it. So, this is a new requirement B
correct? So, ...
Henry Baker: Let me clarify that with Jan [Thornton]. Is that a requirement that it goes through
your office?
Jan Thornton, Director, Office of Technology
Transfer: [Inaudible]
Henry Baker: Okay. What that
paragraph says is that the company with which you are negotiating should be
given a copy of the policy. That is
number one. And, if the agreement with the company violates any principles or
procedures in the policy, then it needs to be negotiated through the Office of
Technology Transfer (OTT). The
important point here is that many companies will try to get you to waive your
rights and most of the time that is not in your best interest. Even though you think that the work that you
do might not translate into Intellectual Property, you leave yourself wide open
for, I think, for no good reason.
Roy Broughton: Well, you do agree
that it is a fairly substantial change in the policy from what is currently
available. I think that most folks
doing consulting realize that they – “their best interest may not be served,”
but for the fee that they get for consulting, they are willing to waive their
personal interest in the Intellectual Property developed off campus on their Aprivate
time.@
This is the first time that the University has asserted that it owns what a
faculty member develops in his private time or in a consulting grant. I guess I would also say that as I read the
proposed policy, it also covers liability for work in the summer. Because it
does not B
if I consult for a company for ten weeks in the summer B
the University doesn=t pay me, but this document doesn=t recognize that. Any consulting that I do must be approved B
the contract that I negotiate with my clients must be approved by the
University Office of Technology (OTT) B and that is a dramatic change in the current policy.
Henry Baker: I think that you may be correct, that we need
to look at that carefully. But, I think
that the point that you should understand is that even though you may be
willing to relinquish Intellectual Property rights for yourself personally B
the University might not.
Roy Broughton: Well, I guess I
would like to make a couple of more comments then. [Laughter]. You are quite
right, this is very unambiguous. The
University, under this policy, owns everything that I do. It doesn=t make exciting reading for
you perhaps, but when faculty members at my place read it, they got very
excited about it B and one of them was on your Committee, and his comment was that
this policy is Aoverreaching.@ As I read the policy, if
I go home and write the great American novel B I am in engineering, if I
go home and write the great American novel on my portable computer, which I
take from the University, truthfully, the policy doesn=t
distinguish whether it is on my portable computer or not B
but if I go home and write it on the weekend, then the University owns it –
unless the University officers are willing to give me the rights to it.
Henry Baker: That=s
not correct.
Roy Broughton:
Well, that is the way it reads to me.
Henry Baker: That may be your interpretation, but let me
give you the Committee=s interpretation of the difference. That is that if you make a discovery in your area, and the
verbiage is very clear here B if you make a discovery in your area of expertise as you are
employed by Auburn University, using Auburn University resources, on Auburn
University time, Auburn University has the first right of refusal of the
ownership of that Intellectual Property B the first right of refusal.
Roy Broughton: If that is what the
proposed policy said, I don=t think that you would get a lot of objection from it. But several people in our place have read
it, and that is not what it says.
Henry Baker: Well, we need to go
back and make sure that it says what we mean.
But I can absolutely guarantee you that we meant those things that I
just said. And the first option issue
is important because if the University chooses not to protect that Intellectual
Property, then the inventors have the right to request ownership of that
Intellectual Property, and that I think B but I can=t say whether or not that right would be granted B
but the right is there.
Let me give you
the other side of the coin B the one that
you just mentioned. If you discover something or create something, first of
all, what you are talking about is copyright and not patent. But if you create
something patentable, that is not in your area of expertise, on your own
resources, not using the University resources, or students B then you have full ownership of that Intellectual Property. That was the intention of this policy.
Roy Broughton: Well, you listed three things B
or four things, and I want to make sure that all of them are present. In order for the University to take
ownership, it should be done on University time; it should be in my area of
expertise that the University pays me for B I guess those are the main two.
Henry Baker: And use University resources B
including students
Roy Broughton: If all three of those are met Y
Henry Baker: If any one of those are met Y
Roy Broughton: Well, the University does not pay me for my summer=s
time. It doesn=t
“un-cover” my summer either Band it does not “un-cover” my weekends or anytime. This policy, if
it is enforced as it is written now, will grind to a halt all of the consulting
that is done by faculty at this University.
Henry Baker: I will speak for
myself rather than the other committee members B I did not consider the
summer employment issue, and we need to look at that. Certainly it is a large
issue.
Jan Thornton: As far as the issue of the summers. I know [Inaudible] for that B I
guess that wasn=t thought of. The policy
has always been, if you are not being paid by the University in the summer,
that you are not held to the same constraints.
If you are off doing work for a company, whatever right that you have at
that company is your own. It just
covers the time when you are receiving the salary dollars, and you actually had
University responsibilities, which is your other nine months.
Henry Baker: You have clarified that. Thank you.
Roy Broughton:
One last point B my folks are very concerned that this will inhibit their ability
to do consulting B because no company that we work with will reasonably stand for
that. The University says that we have
time on our own to go do consulting, but this policy says that we don=t
have time on our own B that it is not our time.
Henry Baker: We certainly don=t
want to inhibit consultation. One of
the functions of a University is to provide its expertise to the public and
encourages that. We don=t
want to suppress consultation. David,
do you have comment?
David Bransby, Member of the Committee, and
Agronomy and Soils Department Senator: Henry
and Dr. Moriarty, I find myself in a very awkward position here B
being a member of the Committee and then having discovered quite a bit, just
yesterday, relative to the policy that we handed to the Vice President as a
committee and what is on the web today.
I think Dr. Moriarty must realize that as a Senate appointee, I am here
ready to represent, firstly the University and then the faculty. What concerned me was the process that we
went through in the Committee, was that each of us was assigned a section to
take the lead in the revision on, and we went through it B
we did ten revisions. Then the last
revision, Number 11, Henry [Baker] sent on to the Vice President of Research.
His office made some changes, called us in and told us about the changes, and
then it went onto the web. What
concerns me, and it is related to the issue that has just been raised here, as
well as other people coming up with the same concerns about the consulting
arrangement. What concerns me most is
that this involves the section that I was responsible for. So, I don=t want my faculty
colleagues to think that I let them down.
I was responsible for Section Nine (9) which actually is not listed as
consulting, but Section Nine involves ownership of the patents. Section Nine - C (9.C) involves under what
conditions does the University release the right to the inventors. In the last version that I saw, the last sentence
of that read like this. AInventions and discoveries made or developed solely in the course
of consulting work performed with prior concurrence in accordance with the
current University Consulting Policy@ B In other words, completion and approval of the UPO -10 Consulting
Form B Ashall
not be consider as having been made or developed in the course of University
employment, unless otherwise provided in the concurrence, or unless a
substantial use of University resources is involved, in which case the University
will determine whether or not Section Seven - A (7.A) applies.@ Now what concerns me, Henry and Dr.
Moriarty, is that statement has been removed, and the Committee was not
informed about it. I would appreciate
an explanation.
Michael Moriarty: David, if I was in your position, I would be
concerned also. The version, help me,
was it 11? That was the version that we
met in the conference room, and talked through with the Committee B
was that Version 11 or 12 B I don=t remember?
David Bransby: That was 11.
Michael Moriarty: That was 11 B we went through the
discussion and came out of that meeting, I think you=ll
agree with a consensus on how we were going to proceed. There was one additional stop that happened
after that meeting. We sent the
document to legal counsel to review to make sure that it met the appropriate
standards. I know that he included one
section back on Number 16 that related to Alabama Ethics Laws B ATo
the extent that any revision of this policy is not consistent with the Alabama
Ethics Laws, the application of such provision shall be restricted or reformed
to the extent required for such provisions to be in compliance.” I was not aware B I
hope you will accept this at face value B there was no intent to be duplicitous here. I was not aware that there were any changes
to the document, other than the incorporation of that about Alabama Ethics,
from what we had agreed upon. We will
go back and revisit that.
David Bransby: In that case B then I think that I need
to draw your attention to a few other changes [Laughter] that I can hardly see
that the legal counsel would have made B under Consulting Agreements, I believe it=s
Section Five - I (5.I).
Unknown Speaker: [Inaudible] Page Nine (9).
David Bransby: I=m
looking at the last revision that we had in committee B
so it has different page numbers. The
very last sentence under Consulting Agreements, I think it is Five-I (5.I) B
“ownership decisions will be made within 30-days of receipt of the disclosure
of the Vice President for Research.”
That was what was in ours. In
the current version, it is 60-days which means that this is doubled B
and I don=t
believe that we were informed about that one either. Then again back to Nine - C (9.C) B Release of Rights to the
Inventors. The second sentence there B it says, first that, AIn the event that Auburn University does not elect normally within
60-days@ B
but not longer than six-months in our version. In the current version, that was
pushed up to eight-months. Again, each
of these B
and I hate to say it this way B but, favors the administration and not the faculty B
and I have to look after the faculty.
Michael Moriarty: That point is well taken. All I can do at this point, because I didn=t
know this as well B we will find out what happened and I think I have an inkling as
to what happened. We will convene the
Committee back for a full explanation as to what happened and why. I agree that it is inappropriate. The version that we ended up with agreement
on, should have been the version that ended up here with the modification of
the Alabama Ethics issue which was a legal issue. I can only offer you my apology B there was no intent to be
duplicitous.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I have two questions. Before I offer those questions, I would like
to make a point of qualification. It
was stated a few minutes ago, that the faculty at the Vet School are 12-months
and that might have affected some attitudes in the development of the policy. The Vet School, as well as the College of
Agriculture are now hiring faculty on nine-month appointments. So, we are in the same boat that you=re
in B in many cases. I think that it is tragic that this document may have been
developed with 12-month faculty in mind and disregarding the issue of summer
opportunities for the nine-month faculty.
That is clearly a point of confusion and I duly urge the Committee to
clarify the issue of activities of faculty during the periods that they are not
salaried by Auburn University. That is
not clear in the present document. Now,
my two other issues are Y
Henry
Baker: May I address
that, Cindy?
Cindy Brunner: Sure.
Henry Baker: We have apologized for the oversight, and it
is going to be corrected. It is hardly a tragedy, but this is a draft document. We are looking for input of that type. We’ll
revise it.
Cindy Brunner: Okay.
Thank you. I had a conversation
with another committee member right before this meeting began, and I am
concerned B
that is my colleague, Byron Blagburn back there B I am concerned that some
of the opinions that were expressed during that conversation might indicate a
more stringent interpretation of the document than you are giving us. As an example B I think, and I don=t
want to misquote Byron B but, I think the way our conversation went was something along
the lines that we as faculty may think that while we are sitting at home in our
La-Z-Boy watching TV and we come up with an idea B that, in fact, that will
end up being a patentable idea B that it=s not really our idea because our thoughts, our attitudes, our
abilities are cultivated by our employment at Auburn University. Therefore, Auburn University has not just an
intellectual interest but a monetary interest in that idea that we came up with
on our own time. That is not what I
hear you saying, and if, in fact, our ideas that are created on our own time,
with our own resources, are our Intellectual Property, that needs to be made
more clear in the document.
Henry Baker: I think it is made clear in the document. I can=t dissect out the sentences to prove that, but we will go back and
look at that. Now, one of the things
that you need to consider is that there may be a conflict of interpretation
about whether or not the idea was developed and reduced to practice with your
own resources and really didn=t use the University=s resources. That is going
to have to be arbitrated. So, the very best thing that you can do is to B
in order to avoid those conflicts B is to be upfront and say B this is what I did; this is what I am going to do; I didn=t
use any University resources; I did it on my own time, and it doesn=t
have anything to do with Patent Policy.
That is a way to protect yourself from ugly arbitration B
by doing it early and getting it clarified.
Cindy Brunner: And in fact, to Byron=s
credit, that is what he said. He said
that these things are not written in stone, they need to be arbitrated, and
somebody needs to start that process by filing a disclosure or raising the
issue.
Henry Baker: He is a smart guy.
Cindy Brunner: Yeah B well, we know that. The
final point that I would like to make is at the other extreme, and that is
Appendix B B
the Participation Agreement B which if I read the document correctly, is something that we
would all be completing and submitting upon hire at Auburn, or in our case, as
current faculty members. Is that
correct?
Henry Baker: The Participation Agreement?
Cindy Brunner: Correct.
Right.
Henry Baker: I believe that is correct and let me clarify
that a bit. The Bayh-Dole bill did a
lot of good things for the University, but there is always a federal down side.
That is that they require the University to report the development of
Intellectual Property, and if the ownership has passed to the inventors, then
they have to approve that. The Federal
Government or granting agency has to approve it. So, you don=t get off Scott-free.
There are reporting requirements for the University and for you.
Michael Moriarty: Cindy,
just to follow up. One other aspect of the Bayh-Dole Act is that it does
require B
for federally sponsored B it does require written agreements such as Appendix B. The current policy drafted in 1974 also
requires a written policy. We have not
incorporated that. The philosophy has
been that the Faculty Handbook is a contract, so to speak, with the faculty,
and the policy is in the handbook, QED the faculty understands the policy. So,
requiring an explicit policy here is not a deviation from what is called for in
the current policy B and is certainly consistently viable.
Cindy Brunner: So, all faculty,
whether or not they anticipate doing work in areas that might involve
Intellectual Property rights, would be required to submit this form.
Michael Moriarty: Yes,
Ma=am. Every place that I have been as a faculty
member, and/or an administrator, when I signed to hire B
what with Blue Cross Blue Shield and the parking forms B I
signed the Intellectual Property forms. Just standard policy.
Cindy Brunner: Okay, well that
leads to my question, which is, 25-years ago, a couple of gentlemen invented a
procedure for making monoclonal antibodies.
We all, those of us who are in biological sciences, are familiar with
that. It turns out B
they considered applying for a patent for that procedure and through some bookkeeping
problems ended up publishing it instead.
By signing this disclosure agreement, am I foregoing my academic right
to simply publish a finding that might, in fact, have monetary value to Auburn
University?
Henry Baker: Cindy, it is not an
easy answer. The Patent Laws allow you
to make a public disclosure and still patent in the United States one-year
after public disclosure. So, you have
the opportunity if you are not interested in protecting your idea worldwide,
and just in the United States, you have a year to do that. The other approach that the Office of
Technology Transfer has encouraged, and it has some down sides, but it is
basically a good approach B and that is the Patent Office now allows provisional
patents. It simply establishes priority. There is no action taken on the submission.
It simply sits in the Patent Office for a year, and during that year you can
publish it. So, there is less of an
inhibition to publish than there was in the past. The exception to that is about worldwide protection. The worldwide protection is voided the day
that you make a public disclosure. So,
the smart thing to do is to make the disclosure to the Office of Technology Transfer
(OTT) as soon as you possibly can and work with them to get the idea protected B
if it needs to be protected B and then you are free to publish this. We certainly don=t want to inhibit publication, as this is a valuable part of what
we do.
John Mouton: Anyone else
please? Christa.
Christa Slaton, Political Science: I didn=t know a lot about patent policies, and when the Policy was put up
on the web, some faculty members from some other departments sent out their
concerns about the Policy. So, I began
to pay attention, and I also sent out a copy of the Policy to the colleagues in
Political Science and asked them to give me their feedback on it. I also went onto the web, when the Secretary
said that there was discussion on the web about the policy. What concerns me, not knowing a lot about
this type of information, is that I heard nothing positive coming from
faculty. I heard lots of fear. Another thing that concerns me is that one
faculty member from Aerospace Engineering sent a three-page, single-spaced,
detail of his experience trying to get a patent for the University for two
things that he had admitted. It is a nightmare story. About the bureaucracy
that he went through B and could not get it. He
was trying to get it for the University.
It was an extremely frustrating experience, and when you read this, it
gives me the impression that a number of revisions need to be made at the
administrative level to make sure that this policy works efficiently B
as it is supposedly intended B according to your comments; because there is nothing that I have
learned from the e-mails that I have gotten from individuals that give me that
confidence B
that it will work as intended. Now
another thing that concerns me is that one of my colleagues took the policy to
a lawyer, who was quite familiar with Auburn and has been engaged with some
lawsuits with Auburn B successfully, I might add B and asked him what he thought of it. I am just going to read from her what he said, AThis
policy is hugely expansive and gives the University rights to virtually
anything that faculty produce or invent, even on their own time, even in a
different field, and even after we have left the University.@ I am not going to read what else she wrote,
because it is more personal. [Laughter] But, now, it may not be what your
intent is or the Committee=s intent, that it can be interpreted this way. But a lawyer, who
is quite familiar with Auburn University, has interpreted it that way. Now, what also concerns me sitting here is
that faculty members who worked diligently on this committee, and agreed to a
document, only discover in the last couple of days that that document was given
to legal staff and not given to them to review before it comes to the faculty.
So, it seems to me that the Committee may be extremely well-intended and tried
to protect the University and the faculty, but that is not the way it is going
to be implemented. So, I would strongly
advise the Committee, to really examine all of these issues and look at that
web site, because that web site, up until yesterday afternoon, when I checked
it last, only had criticisms of the policy and concerns. I have heard from faculty, who are more
familiar with patent issues in this room today, that only increase my concerns B
not alleviate them. Oh, one more
question I had. When you said the
Committee went to look at different policies and figure out what worked right,
and you said that one of the issues was, what consistent with Auburn culture.
How do you define Auburn culture?
Henry Baker: I don=t think that I can do it in words Ybut I know my University,
and I know my colleagues, and I know what they do, and I personally, as a
member of the Committee, tried to interpret my knowledge of this University,
and my faculty, and colleagues and decide what was in their best interest. I am part of this culture. So, I don=t want to impose a MIT
provision that I know will be in conflict with this University culture. Wouldn=t you agree with that?
Christa Slaton:
Is there some way you would distinguish for us how you would
distinguish Auburn from MIT or some the other programs that you looked at B
to give us some idea of the kind of consideration that you gave to it?
Henry Baker: No. I have been a professor at Johns Hopkins
University, University of Alabama in Birmingham, Wake Forest University, and
Auburn University. I have been here for
12-years. I have to use my best
judgment based on that experience with those universities, reading those Patent
Policies, and deciding what would be consistent with the best interest of my
colleagues. Does that help?
Christa Slaton: No, but ... that=s
okay.
Henry Baker: You are trying to make a scientific
definitive statement, and I can=t give you one. There has
to be interpretation. Dare I say, that
the Committee interpretation of this policy is B contradicts the anonymous
lawyer=s
interpretation Y but I think that he is wrong.
Auburn University does have legal counsel, and as you pointed out, this
document was reviewed carefully by legal counsel B so that it would not be
ambiguous legally, and it would stand up in court B
one of the problems that existed with the current policy.
Roy Broughton: I
am not a lawyer, but I agree that it is very un-ambiguous, but
wrong-headed. For those of you who don=t
deal with patents, I would caution you to read Item B on the agreement that you
will be signing. It says, ATo
assign to Auburn University or its designee all of my rights, title, or
interest to such inventions, discoveries, know-how, patent applications,
patents or copyrights. So, those of you
who think that it is not coming down to copyrights need to read the document,
because it says copyrights B and that controls a lot more than just inventions. I am an e-mail subscriber to a list of
correspondence from people like Ms. Thornton B those that run Technology
Transfer Offices B and at least one university has extended their Intellectual
Property rights to cover copyrights.
Henry Baker: Concerning copyrights B
our committee was told not to include anything regarding copyrights in this
policy. That is a separate issue all together. You neglected to read the paragraph that
preceded the quotation. AI
agree to abide by all provisions of the Auburn University Intellectual Property
and Patent Policy, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and I agree.@ So, it does not stand alone. It stands within the context of the Patent
Policy, and which we have discussed B does not exclude any individual from all rights to inventions not
done on University time, using Auburn University resources, and not in their
area of expertise.
Concerning
the comment about the difference between the policy as it is written and in the
implementation of the policy, you are absolutely correct. Our committee cannot control implementation
of policy. What we attempted to do was
to put some constraints on the amount of time or delay that would be required
for a decision to be made whether an inventor’s request for ownership of
Intellectual Property was decided.
Those things were high on our mind B to force the implementation in a timely fashion. Ultimately Dr. Moriarty and Jan Thornton
will be responsible for implementation.
John Mouton: Anyone else please? I am going to make a
couple of observations as we move away from this. The Steering Committee has a meeting on July 23rd. I think one thing that became very evident
to me is that obviously this is a 30-page legal agreement, and even the people
who are much more knowledgeable than I have some questions. Regardless of what our intent is at the time
of the implement, we are putting this in, and it may last for 30-years, and
people that are not around and couldn=t make this discussion are going to go forward and be covered by
it. So, I am going to go to the
Steering Committee and see about us getting a Patent Attorney to read it from a
faculty perspective. I have a great
deal of respect for Lee Armstrong, who is a talented and bright man. I sense [Inaudible] view things from the
University prospective, and I would like to ask [Inaudible] the faculty
perspective. I don=t
know how many of you have been involved in arbitration and then court. In my prior years to here, I have more
experience than I wanted, and I was in construction business. Constructors are called contractors, because
we deal with contracts. It makes no
difference what the intent is B the arbitrators are going to read the letter of the language
[Inaudible]. So please, if you have
questions, go ahead and get them posted.
We are not going to do this immediately. We are not going to meet for a couple of weeks B
but get them posted [Inaudible]. The
other thing, Dr. Moriarty, is that this is going to clearly increase the
activity B
once it is in place B increase the activity of processing the rest of it
[Inaudible]. So, I think that one of
the things to be concerned about B are we staffed up to deal with implementation is the very right
question to ask B and once this body votes on it, I think that we would like some
kind of assurance that the processes that we are looking for [Inaudible]. If there are no other comments, then we will
adjourn the meeting. [Adjournment at
4:32 p.m.]
Adjournment