Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1918 [PAGE 668]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

662

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[February 16,

Certain phases of this subject were discussed by Dean Goss in a report sent you under date of May n , 1916. This report covers the specific case of Professor Yensen, but it contains' no recommendation as to the policy which should guide the University in meeting similar problems that may arise in the future. While it is unlikely that there will be many instances where the proposed regulations will apply, it is interesting that within the past two years we have had a number of perplexing questions which might have been solved if this procedure had been in effect. I have already mentioned the case of Professor Yensen, who, I understand, has obtained a patent on certain processes connected with the development of iron alloys for electrical purposes, which may ultimately become of great importance in the manufacture of electrical machinery. Since this problem was assigned to P r o fessor Yensen by the Department of Electrical Engineering, and all of the expenses of the investigation were borne from the funds of the Engineering Experiment Station, it is perfectly clear to me that he has no right to the discovery which he made, for he acted merely as an employee of the Station, assigned to undertake the solution of a problem which had been outlined with reasonable completeness. However, in the absence of a definite agreement concerning the ownership of discoveries or inventions, it is doubtful whether the University could have prevented Professor Yensen from securing the patents sought by him. T h e discovery of Professor P a r r on the low temperature distillation of coal presents a somewhat different problem. Apparently after the publication of bulletins of the Engineering Experiment Station describing the laboratory processes devised by Professor Parr, some person not connected with the University secured a patent on a process which is almost identical with that discovered by Professor Parr. In this case the results of our scientific work have presumably been appropriated by an outsider, and through the patent granted him, the University and the public are prevented from making use of this discovery which was made in our laboratories. It is possible that a successful attack on the validity of the patent could be made, but the burden of proof and the expense connected therewith would need to be borne by us rather than by the patentee. A third case which I shall discuss in greater detail in another communication is that of the discovery by Dr. Ktinz of important improvements in photo-electric cells, whereby such devices are rendered so reliable and accurate as to assume some commercial as well as scientific importance. A firm in Chicago sees some commercial possibilities in these cells, but it is unwilling to produce or to use them, unless it can have some protection against an irresponsible outsider who may seek a patent on this device. I consider this whole question to be of great importance. If the Board of Trustees finally approves the regulations we are proposing, I assume that they may be incorporated in the Statutes of the University, so that any one accepting employment would need to be governed by them as he is by other University rules.