1. DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE COPY BY GOING TO
WWW.UNLTD.ORG.UK OR SEARCHING
THE INTERNET FOR:
FROM IDEAS TO SOCIAL ENTERPRISE: A
GUIDE TO UTILISING UNIVERSITY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT
OF SOCIETY
Josh Lange, University College London
EMES Conference, July 2013
Contact: jl387@exeter.ac.uk

2. FIRST PROBLEM: WHY DO UNIVERSITIES NEED
GUIDANCE ON UTILISING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY?

4. SECOND PROBLEM:
WHO WOULD YOU PUT ON A TEAM TO WRITE A
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE FOR CREATING
SOCIAL ENTERPRISES WITH UNIVERSITY
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND RESEARCH?

5. SOLUTION: BUILD A DIVERSE AND
KNOWLEDGE-BASED TEAM
 Professor Muki Haklay, UCL Engineering (project owner
and research supervisor)
 Ana Lemmo-Charnalia, UCL, Enterprise (project
manager and content writer)
 Josh Lange, UCL, Language Centre (editor and content
writer)
 Hannah McDowall, Madeleine Gabriel, UnLtd. (content
writers)
 Sonia Nikolovski, University of Manchester TTO (content
writer)
 Gillian Green, University of Manchester (content writer)
 External consultants: Legal, Accounting, and Graphic
Design

6. THIRD PROBLEM: GETTING THE LANGUAGE
RIGHT

7. SOLUTION: WHAT DO WE MEAN BY „SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE‟ IN RELATION TO HIGHER EDUCATION?
 Academics love definitions
 Ouch! There are differences even between the
official UK and EU definitions of SE
 Most formal definitions of SE will carry the basic
idea that a social enterprise is a business that uses
its surpluses to achieve social objectives.
 But it‟s important to emphasize that SE „addresses
neglected societal problems‟ (Santos 2012)
 Similarities/differences to a for-profit business
 Defining through registered organisational form

8. SOLUTION: WHAT DOES „INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY‟
MEAN IN THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT?
• Design, trademarks, patents, copyrightFormal IP
• Specialised information that assists the licensee or
assignee in the use of the IP. This might include
technical (e.g. a secret method or recipe, unpublished
research findings) or non-technical information
(exclusive marketing or business information). Some
know-how might be protected by confidentiality
agreements or by copyright laws.
Subject
matter
expertise
• Materials that might be needed by the IP
licensee/assignee in order to produce the
service/product. These materials may not be available
elsewhere and so a separate agreement relating to the
transfer of these materials from the HEI to the
licensee/assignee will be needed.
Tangible
items

9. SOLUTION: THE GUIDE MUST COMMUNICATE TO
MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS IN UNIVERSITY IP
“Terms borrowed from the corporate
lexicon…invariably grates on the academic mind and
threatens to widen the gulf between faculty and
administration” (Bok, 2003, p.335).
Social Enterprises Utilising University IP:
 Utilise the high level of skills, knowledge and abilities of
academic and research staff
 Impact positively on HEI communities, particularly in inner city
areas by addressing relevant social and environmental problems
 Enrich the learning and research experience by testing ideas for
solutions of social and environmental problems in everyday
economic environments
 Align with HEI charitable goals and public relations initiatives

10. WHAT LANGUAGE DID WE NEED TO CHANGE TO
COMMUNICATE TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS?
 „Creating sustainable solutions with IP‟
 „Utilising IP for the benefit of society‟
 Negotiating in-principle agreements
 Formulating in-principle agreements
 Negotiating the use of IP
 Agreeing on the use of IP
 Technology transfer office
 Knowledge transfer office

11. FOURTH PROBLEM: PHILOSOPHICAL
POSITIONING

12. POSITION 1: MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL
UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 “Universities share one
characteristic with compulsive
gamblers and exiled royalty: there
is never enough money to satisfy
their desires”
- Derek Bok, 2003

13. POSITION 2: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD DO
UNTO YOUR UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 “Social enterprise plays an
important role and resonates
particularly with UCL, which it
might be argued, was originally
set up as a social enterprise”
– Stephen Caddick, 2013 (in the foreword to
the Guide)

14. SOLUTION: SANTOS‟S (2012) VERSION OF ADAM
SMITH‟S ECONOMIC AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Self-Interest Edifice Others-Regarding Edifice
Sustainable Competitive Advantage
Logic of Control (5 Forces)
IP Protection and Trade Secrets
Maximize Profits
Firms
Capture Value
Incentives
Self-Interest
Sustainable solutions
Logic of Empowerment
Share knowledge, Open Source
Maximize Societal Impact
Community / Solution
Create Value
Intrinsic Motivation
Others-Regarding

15. SOLUTION: NEW UK/EU POLICIES REQUIRE
UNIVERSITY IP TO BENEFIT SOCIETY
 RCUK Excellence to Impact Framework (2012): „improving health
and well-being‟, „enhancing the research capacity, knowledge and
skills of public, private and third-sector organisations‟
„environmental sustainability, protection and impact‟ and
„enhancing cultural enrichment and quality of life‟
 UK Public Services Act (2013): social value must be considered as
part of all public sector commissioning processes
 European Commission SBI (25.10.2011): research should support
employability, social inclusion, and ethical trade
 Higher Education Funding Council for England (2012): HEIs have
vast but largely untapped capacity to build the next generation of
financially profitable and environmentally sustainable social
enterprises

16. FIFTH PROBLEM: THE GUIDE MUST SUPPORT
BOTH ACADEMIC SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
AND KTO STAFF TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS
ABOUT IP

17.  One-page university IP social business sketch checklist
 Relationship matrix between knowledge transfer offices
and social entrepreneurs
 Process of agreeing on university IP scenario tool
 In-principle agreement negotiation preparation
questionnaire
 University intellectual property social benefit equity
formula
 Social impact measurement principles and categories
for university IP
 Model agreements that adhere to UK contract law
 Case studies from diverse faculties, university contexts,
and organisational forms
SOLUTION: PRACTICAL TOOLS THAT EVEN AN
ACADEMIC ECONOMIST CAN USE

18. EXAMPLE:
UNLTD. PRINCIPLES FOR MEASURING IMPACT
 Decide what to measure
 Identify robust indicators of outputs and outcomes
 Decide what types of evidence are needed

19. EXAMPLE: MEASURING IMPACT OF UIP
Beneficiaries
Results
Costs
Alternatives
Benefits
Externalities

20. EXAMPLE: MEASURING IMPACT OF UIP
 Beneficiaries: What information about the beneficiaries is
relevant to organisational aims? (e.g. age, sex, disability,
employment status, etc.).
 Results: What measureable outcomes does this social venture
actually achieve? (e.g. number of patients saved by a university-
developed heart-monitoring device in a specified time period).
 Costs: How much does it cost to provide each service? (e.g.
some organisations calculate the cost of volunteers as if they
were paid minimum wage).
 Alternatives: What would have happened if the social venture
had never intervened? (e.g. 1 million patients in developing
countries would be unable to afford a life-saving treatment).
 Benefits: How can the value of this social venture be shown?
(e.g. short/long term quantitative results OR a financial cost
determined concerning the implications for society - i.e.
alternatives - without this venture).
 Positive Externalities: Are there any unplanned benefits coming
out of this social venture that can be quantified? (e.g.
beneficiaries or staff supplement the existing technology with a
profit-making enhancement)

21. THANKS FOR LISTENING
DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE COPY OF „THE GUIDE‟ BY
GOING TO WWW.UNLTD.ORG.UK OR
SEARCHING THE INTERNET FOR:
FROM IDEAS TO SOCIAL ENTERPRISE: A GUIDE TO
UTILISING UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF SOCIETY
Contact Josh Lange: jl387@exeter.ac.uk