As part of the government’s research commercialisation framework there’s a proposal for managing Intellectual Property – the ATN Group is not impressed

“The IP Framework as outlined is not fit-for-purpose – its prescriptive approach and focus on compliance is antithetical to the flexible, adaptive and responsive approach that our industry partners are seeking,” the Australian Technology Network and its pal Uni Newcastle state.

The proposed framework was released last month, with a view to creating a way for “transferring publicly funded research results into breakthrough products and new businesses,” (CMM September 22).

But the ATN thinks not, “There is a real risk that if the commercialisation environment is too tightly regulated and subject to an onerous reporting burden, then the government will in fact discourage and stymie the kind of commercialisation activities we intend to promote and pursue. Our goal should be to make commercialisation easier and more attractive for all partners.”

ATE suggests three ways to “re-cast” the Framework,

* separate strategies for Indigenous IP. “There are particular customs, legal issues, rights and responsibilities, and cultural and ethical considerations that should govern (its) use …”

* “direct positive support for commercialisation as part of a comprehensive scheme.” “There are various potential blockages in the research-commercialisation pipeline and specific enablers needed from early-stage research right through to commercialisation. Managing and maximising our use of intellectual property is one element of a much larger system

*” there is a place for standard agreements and templates. However, the principles of flexibility, adaptability, responsiveness and being partner-led also mean that standard agreements should not restrict or limit universities and their partners from making the arrangements that best suit their circumstances.”

But mainly the ATN suggests the feds start again,

* The IP Framework should be re-cast to focus on enabling opportunity rather than enforcing compliance.

“there is a place for standard agreements and templates. However, the principles of flexibility, adaptability, responsiveness and being partner-led also mean that standard agreements should not restrict or limit universities and their partners from making the arrangements that best suit their circumstances.”