The Editorial Board of The Polytechnic appreciates the effort that the Institute has put forth in revising its intellectual property policy. We agree with the spirit of many of the changes in the document; however, we have concerns with its final wording.
The policy contains unclear and contradictory language. For example, the document uses the phrase “Significant Use of Rensselaer Support” throughout the document. We would expect the word “significant” to imply some sort of limit to the degree of use. The document itself, however, does not provide any such limitation. Any use of resources that are covered under the policy, whether they are used for one minute or throughout the development of the intellectual property, will cause the intellectual property to be owned by RPI.
Some of the more frightening provisions include use of computers and software. Although exceptions are explicitly granted for the use of “office computers,” no exceptions are given for laptops leased through the mobile computing program, nor for the software that students obtain through RPI’s licensing program. Software such as Microsoft Windows that students obtain through the mobile computing program, or MATLAB, which students license directly through RPI’s Academic and Research Computing could be construed as “significant use.”
These sort of situations should be clarified directly in the policy. The Institute intends it to be a legally binding document—any vagueness in the policy could lead to legal disputes further down the road. It is more prudent to address these problems now before a legal problem arises. Secretary of the Institute Charles Carletta said that the policy was reworked partially because the wording was unclear. We would like to make sure that the revised policy addresses this concern.
We believe that it would be better for the Institute’s policy to be more in line with other universities. Most institutions allow for a definition of “significant use” that allows for some minor use of otherwise restricted resources.
The Editorial Board is concerned that the overly broad redefinition of significant use will discourage students and faculty from innovating while at RPI. The Institute is asking students, “Why not change the world?” It should not give them a reason to hesitate by imposing an overly restrictive policy.
