After contentious debate lasting more than an hour, the faculty voted 33-22 at its Tuesday meeting in favor of a resolution endorsing a new policy on patents, inventions and copyrights - but the result might have been illegitimate because procedure at the faculty meeting appeared to violate faculty rules.
At issue was whether the University should be able to claim rights to inventions and discoveries made by professors while away from Brown and without University funding, such as during summers, breaks, sabbaticals and in independent consulting projects.
Sixty-four professors were present for the vote - short of the required quorum of 100 voting faculty members. In a last-ditch effort to block the passage of the resolution after it passed a faculty vote, opponents quickly pointed out that a quorum was not present. But the meeting's parliamentarian, Professor of Engineering Peter Richardson, said that a quorum is assumed unless a count is first requested. Because a request for a count was not made before the vote, Richardson said the passing vote was legitimate.
With Richardson's assertion, the meeting continued to other business.
But the faculty rules and regulations that govern faculty meetings suggest that the vote should have been voided.
Part 1, Section 1, Clause IV-B-7-a of the faculty rules and regulations reads, "Business that has been transacted in the unascertained absence of a quorum is legal unless it is ascertained that there is an absence of a quorum before other business has intervened. If no other business has been taken up, the business that has been transacted just prior to determining the absence of a quorum is automatically null and void."
In other words, any action taken immediately prior to a count finding a lack of a quorum is null and void. Tuesday's vote supporting the resolution to endorse the policy occurred immediately prior to the count finding that a quorum was not present.
Richardson could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.
This was one example of the procedural confusion that plagued the meeting and increased tension among those present. At times, faculty and administrators were unsure of which resolution or amendment was on the table for debate, and President Ruth Simmons, who presides over faculty meetings, inconsistently interrupted and stopped professors who spoke without being recognized. Some professors who wished to speak could not due to time constraints.
The intellectual property policy caused controversy because it assigns to the University "all rights in any discovery or invention created or made in the course of research carried out by covered individuals," who are, according to the policy, faculty or others employed by the University who conceive, develop or research discoveries or inventions with University funding or resources.
Royalties from inventions and discoveries claimed by the University are split among inventors, their departments and the University.
Vice President for Research Andries van Dam, who proposed the policy, told The Herald that the policy would allow the University to assert "default rights" to inventions and discoveries made by faculty during the course of their normal duties, even if the University's rights are not exclusive. The policy is designed to bring the University into the process of considering rights allocation and not leave the decision of allocating the royalties exclusively to the professor, he said.
But Associate Professor of Physics Xinsheng Ling called the policy a "slavery code" and "scare tactic" that is designed to intimidate faculty members unfamiliar with its legalese. He told The Herald that it gives the University unilateral power to claim rights to the work of professors, even if accomplished without University support.
"The University is making the policy in such a way that I will be a thief in keeping my own ideas and my own property," he said.
Opponents also say the policy fails to adequately distinguish between work accomplished for the University and inventions and discoveries made independently.
Professor of Chemistry Gerald Diebold proposed an amendment to exempt from the policy inventions or discoveries "conceived, reduced to practice or developed" on one's "own time," without use of University equipment, supplies or facilities. The amendment specified that evenings, weekends, summers and sabbaticals when the individual does not receive University funding would be considered one's "own time." Work done by professors in consulting projects independent of Brown would also have been exempted under the amendment. The amendment failed by a vote of 20-35.
Van Dam told The Herald that the concept of one's "own time" is foreign to intellectual property policies, both at Brown and at peer institutions.
But Diebold told the faculty that laws in six states, including California, delineate between work done for an employer and work done on one's own time. Brown's policy would be considered illegal in those states, he said.
In a statement to the faculty distributed at the meeting, Ling wrote that the existing intellectual property policy from 1981 "is exactly in line with the law: If the work is done under a grant or used a Brown facility, it's Brown's property. Otherwise, it is not."
Van Dam told the faculty that Brown's policy is consistent with all relevant laws and mirrors those of peer institutions.
The University "fundamentally disagrees" that it should not have a right to discoveries and inventions made during times away from Brown, such as weekends and sabbaticals, van Dam told The Herald.
The policy applies to sabbaticals and vacations because they are considered benefits of University employment, he said, citing the fact that professors still receive salaries and fringe benefits from the University.
But van Dam said the University has no claim to inventions and discoveries completely unrelated to a professor's work at Brown.
Throughout the meeting, van Dam reiterated that the policy acknowledges the existence of unclear situations, stressing that a committee comprised of faculty members will adjudicate such cases.
Ling said he was involved last year in a dispute over intellectual property rights with the University that went before a faculty committee. Ling said that the chair of the committee, John Preston, told Ling that Provost Robert Zimmer asked Preston to resign after the committee sided with Ling. Zimmer denied the allegation at Tuesday's meeting.
Preston is currently a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Disagreement over the policy aside, Ling said a fair vote of the faculty is essential. "If the majority of my colleagues accept the University's policy, I will accept it - even if it is a slave code," he said.
In other business, Simmons solicited faculty input for the development of a summary of University needs, outlining areas that will be targeted in the University's capital campaign. The Corporation will approve the plan at its May meeting, in advance of the expected October launch of the public phase of the campaign.
Richard Spies, executive vice president for planning and senior adviser to the president, updated the faculty on the University's master plan for physical growth. Long-term plans call for public-private partnerships between the University and city, state and other agencies to allow Brown to grow beyond College Hill, he said, adding that the short-term priority is to locate space to house the medical school and public health program. Several administrative offices, the library annex and some laboratories are already located outside of the main campus.
