Faculty and employee ownership of inventions in Australia

A recent decision by the Australian High Court means that, unless faculty are bound by an assignment or intellectual property (IP) policy, they may own inventions resulting from their research. Thirty years after its introduction, the US Bayh-Dole Act, which vests ownership of employee inventions in the employer university or research organization, has become a model for commercialization around the world. In Australia, despite recommendations that a Bayh-Dole style regime be adopted, the recent decision in University of Western Australia (UWA) v Gray1 has moved the default legal position in a diametrically opposite direction. A key focus of the debate was whether faculty’s duty to carry out research also encompasses a duty to invent. Late last year, the Full Federal Court confirmed a lower court ruling that it does not, and this year the High Court refused leave to appeal (denied certiorari). Thus, Gray stands as Australia’s most faculty-friendly authority to date.

A fork in the Australian road? Ownership of patented employee inventions

Employee ownership of inventions is a complex matter in modern R&D involving multiple parties with diverse interests. Presently, Australian courts are struggling to reach equitable results in light of precedent. This article examines recent Australian, American and English decisions that attempt to balance the variables equitably for insights into potential Australian reform.

Directing democracy : competing interests and contested terrain in the John Lewis Partnership

The John Lewis Partnership is one of Europe’s largest models of employee ownership and has been operating a form of employee involvement and participation since its formation in 1929. It is frequently held up as a model of best practice (Cathcart, 2013) and has been described as a ‘workers’ paradise’ (Stummer and Lacey, 2001). At the beginning of 2012, the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK unveiled plans to create a ‘John Lewis Economy’ (Wintour, 2012). As John Lewis is being positioned at the heart of political and media discussions in the UK about alternatives to the corporate capitalist model of enterprise, it is vital that more is known about the experience of employee involvement and participation within the organisation. This article explores the ways in which the practice of employee involvement and participation has changed in John Lewis as a result of competing employee and managerial interests. Its contribution is a contemporary exploration of participation in the John Lewis Partnership and an examination of the ways in which management and employees contested the meaning and practice of employee involvement and participation as part of a ‘democracy project’, which culminated in significant changes and degeneration of the democratic structures.

The John Lewis model reveals the tensions and paradoxes at the heart of workplace democracy

Politicians of all parties have been keen to promote the ‘John Lewis model’ of industrial organisation, emphasising its features of employee ownership and workplace democracy. Dr Abby Cathcart’s research into the company shows that management and workers have different visions of what ‘partnership’ means, with ongoing struggle taking place via the organisation’s democratic structures. This, she argues, has stark implications for other organisations with partnership models that are less robust.

Culture as a driver of entrepreneurship : contrasting independent entrepreneurship versus employee entrepreneurship

Principal Topic Counties in Northern Europe, such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark, have comparatively low per capita rates of entrepreneurship as measured by independent new venture start-up rates – as for example measured by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) rate. However, the latest 2011 GEM data reveals that these same countries have comparatively very high Employee Entrepreneurship Activity (EEA) rates – that is a high rate per capita of employees involved in new product development or new enterprise activities. This observation has prompted us to investigate the role of national culture in driving independent versus employee entrepreneurial activities. Prior research has established that national (and regional) culture plays an important role in forming an “entrepreneurial culture” that encourages (or discourages) independent business start-ups and TEA (e.g. Davidsson, 1995; Beugelsdijk, 2007). However, the relationship of culture and EEA has not received research attention. Moreover, empirical relationships between elements of national culture and independent entrepreneurship have revealed some surprising results. For example, Wildeman et al. (1999) report an unexpected higher share of individual business ownership in countries that have higher uncertainty avoidance, higher power distance and lower individualism according to Hofstede’s dimensions of culture. They speculate that dissatisfaction can be a source of entrepreneurship: in countries with a high power distance, a high uncertainty avoidance and low individualism, there may be relatively more business owners since enterprising individuals cannot satisfy their needs within existing organizations. Yet it remains a rather open question whether entrepreneurial behaviour in existing organisations provides a satisfactory explanation for these empirical findings. Methods We will conduct a cross sectional study of the influence of national culture according to the five / six dimensions of Hofstede (1980; 2001) on both TEA and EEA for the 54 countries that participated in GEM 2011. Since it is well established that the opportunities for entrepreneurship vary substantially with a country’s level of economic development, we intend to conduct separate analyses for the three categories of development – innovation driven economies, efficient driven economies and factor driven economies. We also intend to restrict our assessment of TEA to opportunity driven entrepreneurship, as necessity driven entrepreneurship has a different relationship to the “entrepreneurial culture” that is the focus of our study. We will control for a range of factors such as GDP growth, ease of doing business index and unemployment. Results and Implications Descriptive analyses of the GEM TEA and EEA data reveal clusters of countries that appear to be have similar national culture. We are yet to conduct regression analyses.