University licensing offices don’t even recover their own costs in the status quo – expenses are too high. Inventor ownership is more efficient and effective.

[Gerald, “11 rationalizations regarding university compulsory patent ownership,” Research Enterprise, 08/01/16, https://researchenterprise.org/2016/08/01/11-rationalizations-regarding-university-compulsory-patent-ownership/, accessed 7/17/24, GDI-JCR]

Here’s a related statement to consider: University licensing offices cannot recover their costs in their present approach. One license deal every decade or two might make millions. Stanford had three lucrative deals in 36 years and has been the envy of most everyone. Then the millions might make up for the millions spent in patenting, salary for patent management staff, legal review and litigation, operating costs, insurance costs, costs in delays in research and contracting, opportunity costs as a consequence of the approach. But most university licensing operations don’t break even, even with comprehensive, compulsory ownership. One reason: they have claimed so much IP and non-IP that they are swamped with disclosures (which they report as success), swamped with patenting logisitics (which they report as a sign of future potential), and they are swamped with trying to document, inventory, and market all of what they have. They are so busy on the loading dock that they hardly have time to get anything out into service.

The compulsory approach creates such costs in volume and complexity of work that it makes it next to impossible to break even. If licensing is mostly a matter of focus, luck, and industry good will, then a university would do much better being highly selective or having inventors deal with any reputable invention management agent of their choice and asking only for a share of licensing income if an invention has been made or developed in a manner that supports a finding that the university has an equitable interest in the invention. Help inventors find good agents, provide substantial resources upon request, and request a share of the income from those inventions in recognition of that help. Few costs, no ownership, nice returns–readily greater than expenses.