Search the RE article base
Contact Information
Twitter
My TweetsUseful Web Sites
Category Archives: Policy
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 21: Outside Activities
We are into Penn State’s policy on “Private Consulting Practice,” HR80. We arrive at, finally, a definition of “outside activity”–since one can be involved in outside consulting or merely go AWOL: Outside consulting or other professional activity or service, paid … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 21: Outside Activities
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 20: Consulting
Penn State’s policy on entrepreneurial activity, IP06, continues by reciting badly the university policy on consulting, at HR80. Yes, I suppose we have to look, having read the book. HR80 begins with an assertion about faculty duties: A faculty member … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 20: Consulting
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 19: Conflict of Commitment
Even with this critique we have not got to the bottom of Penn State’s policy treatment of conflict of interest/commitment as a covert IP policy. Conflicts of interest and/or commitment “exist” when someone has “preferential access” to knowledge or university … Continue reading
Posted in Freedom, Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 19: Conflict of Commitment
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 18: University Interests
Penn State’s policy on entrepreneurial activities opens with this claim: Technology transfer must be effected within the framework of an individual’s obligations to the University. Given what we have learned about Penn State’s policies on academic freedom, we might revise … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 18: University Interests
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 17: Academic Freedom
Here’s the opening of Penn State’s policy on academic freedom (HR 64): Academic freedom refers to the environment provided by the University that permits faculty members to engage in their scholarly pursuits of teaching, research, and related activities at institutions … Continue reading
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 16: Entrepreneurial Activity
We worked through Penn State IP policies past (1940, 1991) and current, looked as well at the weirdness that is the IP Agreement (from 1992 and current), and discovered that for all that apparatus–poorly conceived and drafted–the only formal requirements … Continue reading
Posted in Policy, Technology Transfer
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 16: Entrepreneurial Activity
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 15: The Moloch Administrator
The current Penn State IP Agreement preserves many of the problems of the 1992 version, which we have previously discussed. Let’s look at the new, modern problems that the current IP Agreement adds to the mess. PSU IP–The IP policy … Continue reading
Posted in Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 15: The Moloch Administrator
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 13: Condition or Consideration?
The Penn State IP policy makes signing the current IP Agreement a “condition of employment.” But the IP Agreement itself asserts that the agreement is “in consideration” of “employment/ appointment/association.” Somehow things are reversed. In a normal employment relationship, payment … Continue reading
Posted in Agreements, Policy
Comments Off on Penn State’s Protection Racket, 13: Condition or Consideration?
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 12: Policy and Contract
Policy in a university distributes authority, identifies purposes, and establishes procedures. Policy, for instance, establishes the conditions for faculty appointments. But the actual appointment of a given faculty member requires an act by an administrator on behalf of the university. … Continue reading
Penn State’s Protection Racket, 11: The 1992 and current IP Agreements
We have been through a lot of Penn State policy now. We have looked at the 1940 IP policy, the 1991 IP policy, and the current IP policy. We have also looked at the 1992 IP Agreement and compared it … Continue reading