Following on a piece in July by Kaylee Galloway for Catalyst that raised questions about UW’s commercialization program, Benjamin Romano of Xconomy has written an article that takes a look. Romano reports various perspectives, and lets readers decide what to make of the situation.
UW’s president says he wants to make the world a better place. The logic appears to be that by making a lot of money for the university and making the university a better place– that means the world is better, too, no? The problem is that the C4C program has fudged key metrics, withheld others, and deceived the public and perhaps also the president of the university along with others.
The advisory committee report that Romano provides at the end of his article is worth a read, too. I don’t get the reasoning of the report, other than that it appears to express dissatisfaction with the way C4C has operated, even as the university has announced how wonderful C4C is, winning awards and all. The report appears to provide the cover for dismissing C4C’s director, after another $120,ooo for services as a special advisor. It is not clear at all how superficial rearrangement of licensing terms to startups will address the problems at C4C, not the least of which is that UW’s one big-hit patent expired last April, and the multi-million royalty checks are going to stop, and C4C will be over-spending by, let’s guess, $8M/year.
I have questions.
Why have UW leaders let C4C continue to spend wildly until the Hall money runs out?
Why should the state fund C4C when the WRF has, hum, $150M or more to cover the gap?
Why should the state be subsidizing local venture capitalists anyway?
Isn’t UW’s stock participation in and direct management of the W Fund illegal?
Why should UW focus its IP program around shell startups? Isn’t that so, uh, passé?
Why doesn’t UW report economic impact metrics for C4C–new products, jobs in the state, venture exits, operating net?