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.

Whose ETSIP? National and local ownership of Namibia's education and training sector improvement programme

Tämä työ tarkastelee kansallista ja paikallista omistajuutta Namibian opetussektorin kehittämisohjelmassa. Opetussektorin kehittämisohjelma ETSIP on 15-vuotinen sektoriohjelma vuosille 2005-2015 ja sen tavoitteena on edesauttaa Namibian kehittymistä tietoyhteiskunnaksi. Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on selvittää miten kansallinen ja paikallinen omistajuus on toteutunut ETSIP prosessin aikana. Erityisesti pyritään selvittämään paikallistason opetussektorin virkamiesten näkemyksiä ETSIP prosessista, heidän roolistaan siinä ja siitä millaisia vaikuttamisen ja hallinnan mahdollisuuksia heillä on ollut prosessin aikana. Tutkimuksen lähtökohta on laadullinen ja lähestymistapa konstruktionistinen: tutkimus tarkastelee todellisuutta ihmisten kokemusten, näkemysten ja toiminnan kautta. Tutkimusaineisto koostuu haastatteluista, epävirallisista keskusteluista, lehtiartikkeleista ja ETSIP dokumenteista. Tutkimus osoittaa että kansallinen omistajuus on epämääräinen käsite sillä kansallisia toimijoita ja näkemyksiä on useita. Tutkimus vahvistaa Castel-Brancon huomion siitä, että omistajuutta on tarkasteltava kontekstissaan: muuttuvana ja kilpailtuna. ETSIPin rinnalle ollaan valmistelemassa uutta strategista ohjelmaa opetusministeriölle mikä saattaa muuttaa omistajuutta ETSIPiin. ETSIP dokumenttien omistajuusretoriikka myötäilee kansainvälisiä sitoumuksia avun vaikuttavuuden parantamiseksi mutta niistä puuttuu syvällisempi analyysi siitä, miten kansallinen ja paikallinen omistajuus toteutuisi käytännössä. Avunantajien näkemys omistajuudesta on suppea: omistajuus nähdään lähinnä sitoutumisena ennalta määrättyyn politiikkaohjelmaan. Haastatteluaineistosta nousee esiin Whitfieldin ja Frazerin jaottelu suppeista ja laajoista omistajuuskäsityksistä. Sitoutumista ETSIP ohjelmaan pidetään tärkeänä mutta riittämättömänä määritteenä omistajuudelle. Paikallisella tasolla sitoutuminen ETSIP ohjelman periaatteisiin ja tavoitteisiin on toteutunut melko hyvin mutta jos omistajuutta tarkastellaan laajemmin vaikutusvallan ja hallinnan käsitteiden kautta voidaan todeta että omistajuus on ollut heikkoa. Paikallisella tasolla ei ole ollut juurikaan vaikutusvaltaa ETSIP ohjelman sisältöön eikä mahdollisuutta hallita ohjelman toteutusta ja päättää siitä mitä hankkeita ohjelman kautta rahoitetaan. Tujanin demokraattisen omistajuuden käsite kuvaa tarvetta muuttaa ja laajentaa omistajuusajattelua huomioiden paikallisen tason paremmin. Tämä tutkimus viittaa siihen että omistajuuden toteutuminen paikallisella tasolla edellyttäisi institutionaalisen kulttuurin muutosta ja institutionaalisen legitimiteetin vahvistamista. Omistajuuden mahdollistamiseksi paikallisella tasolla tarvittaisiin poliittista johtajuutta, luottamusta, vastuullisuuden kulttuurin kehittämistä, tehokkaampaa tiedonjakoa, laajaa osallistumista, vuoropuhelua ja yhteistyötä. Ennen kaikkea tarvittaisiin paikallisen tason vaikutusvaltaa päätöksenteossa ja kontrollia resurssien käytöstä. Tälle muutokselle on selvä tarve ja tilaus.

Transferring ownership of public housing to existing tenants: a mechanism design approach

This paper explores situations where tenants in public houses, in a specific neighborhood, are given the legislated right to buy the houses they live in or can choose to remain in their houses and pay the regulated rent. This type of legislation has been passed in many European countries in the last 30-35 years (the U.K. Housing Act 1980 is a leading example). The main objective with this type of legislation is to transfer the ownership of the houses from the public authority to the tenants. To achieve this goal, selling prices of the public houses are typically heavily subsidized. The legislating body then faces a trade-off between achieving the goals of the legislation and allocating the houses efficiently. This paper investigates this specific trade-off and identifies an allocation rule that is individually rational, equilibrium selecting, and group non-manipulable in a restricted preference domain that contains “almost all” preference profiles. In this restricted domain, the identified rule is the equilibrium selecting rule that transfers the maximum number of ownerships from the public authority to the tenants. This rule is preferred to the current U.K. system by both the existing tenants and the public authority. Finally, a dynamic process for finding the outcome of the identified rule, in a finite number of steps, is provided.

Does the Stockholm Programme matter? The struggles over ownership of AFSJ multiannual programming. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 51/December 2012

Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post- Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015–20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?

Concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights: Some implications for developing countries

This paper explores concentration levels in the ownership of intellectual property rights over plant varieties worldwide. An analysis of data for 30 UPOV member-countries shows a high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights for six major crops at the national level in the developed world. Much of this concentration has arisen owing to the rapid consolidation of the seed industry through mergers and acquisitions, especially in the 1990s. A high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights, in combination with recent efforts to strengthen plant variety protection regimes, is likely to have significant effects on the prospects for future innovation in plant breeding and the distribution of market power between companies. For developing countries, concentration in intellectual property right ownership may have important implications for the structure of domestic seed industries and access to protected varieties and associated plant breeding technologies. These implications for developing countries are likely to become apparent in the context of the rapid spread of plant variety protection and access legislation, emerging changes in the international exchange regime for plant material and liberalised investment policies permitting foreign investment in the seeds sector.

Concentration in ownership of plant variety rights: some implications for developing countries

This paper explores concentration levels in the ownership of intellectual property rights over plant varieties worldwide. An analysis of data for 30 UPOV member-countries shows a high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights for six major crops at the national level in the developed world. Much of this concentration has arisen owing to the rapid consolidation of the seed industry through mergers and acquisitions, especially in the 1990s. A high degree of concentration in the ownership of plant variety rights, in combination with recent efforts to strengthen plant variety protection regimes, is likely to have significant effects on the prospects for future innovation in plant breeding and the distribution of market power between companies. For developing countries, concentration in intellectual property right ownership may have important implications for the structure of domestic seed industries and access to protected varieties and associated plant breeding technologies. These implications for developing countries are likely to become apparent in the context of the rapid spread of plant variety protection and access legislation, emerging changes in the international exchange regime for plant material and liberalised investment policies permitting foreign investment in the seeds sector. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Constitutionality: Conditions for Crafting Local Ownership of Institution-Building Processes

This article presents constitutionality as a new approach for analyzing bottom-up institution-building processes emphasizing local perceptions and local agency in common pool resource management. Using four case studies—fisheries in Zambia; pasture and forestry in Mali; fisheries in Indonesia; forestry in Bolivia—this approach analyzes examples of local institution building differing from top-down imposed participation. Our analysis highlights six components of constitutionality: emic perceptions of the need for new institutions, participatory processes of negotiation, preexisting institutions as a basis for institution building, outside catalyzing agents, recognition of local knowledge, and higher level acknowledgment of the new institutions.

Psychological Ownership of Employees as a Mediator in the Justice - Affective Commitment Relationship

Numerous scholars have accumulated evidence on the positive effects that employees’ organizational justice perceptions exert on work-related outcomes such as affective commitment. However, research still lacks understanding of the underlying mechanisms connecting the two constructs. In this article we aim to narrow this gap by examining the concept of psychological ownership as a possible mediator between organizational justice perceptions and affective commitment. Investigating a sample of 619 employees, we find distributive justice to be positively related to psychological ownership, and observe psychological ownership as a full mediator of the distributive justice and affective commitment relationship. These insights offer a new explanation in understanding the justice-commitment connection, contributing to both organizational justice and psychological ownership literature and opening up ways for promising future research.

Minority ownership of small business: instructional handbook.

"Produced by the Office of Education in cooperation with the Dept. of Commerce, the Dept. o Housing and Urban Development, and the Office of Economic Opportunity."