Sharon,

I've used two other approaches to negotiate against tactics like Alcatel's.

1.)  Sponsors cannot compare universities because we all bring different
levels and sources of support to our various projects.  The texas university,
to which Alcatel referred, may have had no other funds intermingled in the
development of the program in question.  We, and most probably you too, can
make the case that there is state, federal, and other sponsor funding involved
in the development of the project environment (buildings, labs, personnel,
etc.).  Each has its own requirements regarding ownership of IP, publications,
and copyright.  The only way to keep things straight is for the universities
to retain ownership and control.

2.)  Try turning the tables on them.  They say, "another university accepted
the terms, so you should too."  So you say, "we don't accept this with any
other sponsors, so we cannot make an exception for Alcatel."

Oh, I thought of a third thing.

3.)  When they say a texas university accepted the terms, ask them for the
specific contact at that university "so that you might speak with him/her and
find out how they were able to justify the departure from normal policy.
Perhaps they can suggest an avenue which might work for you in the current
situation."  I've seen more than one corporate procurement specialist choke on
his bluff.

good luck,

-Matt

Jeff Myers wrote:

> I haven't dealt with this company but I frequently hear this
> rationalization when negotiating industry agreements.  I always attempt to
> check into it.  I generally find that, in order of most common occurrence:
>
> 1.      It hasn't been accepted by anyone else (or it is still pending).
> 2.      It has been accepted but material changes to the terms were made.
> 3.      It has been accepted but the nature of the research at the other
> institution is such that it is virtually certain that no IP will result
> from the work.
> 4.      It has been accepted.
>
> Number 4 is very uncommon, but even if another institution has accepted
> unfavorable terms we still negotiate.  I argue from the perspective of our
> own laws, regulations, policies, etc which would preclude acceptance of
> this language.  We  avoid setting a precedent like this at all costs even
> if no IP of any value is anticipated.
>
> Jeff Myers
> SIU
>
> At 04:33 PM 7/18/00 -0700, Sharon Kuhlenschmidt wrote:
> >We have received an agreement from Alcatel USA Sourcing, L. P. that
> >includes clauses giving them all rights, title and interest in the
> >project, documentation and any inventions (patentable or unpatentable),
> >copyrights,...
> >
> >The company will not budge on this point and says that other
> >Universities (they specifically mentioned "Texas") have accepted their
> >language.  I would greatly appreciated hearing from any of you who have
> >interacted with this company specifically on the ownership issue.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Sharon Kuhlenschmidt
> >Grants Development Analyst
> >Building 38 Room 152
> >California Polytechnic State University
> >San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> >(805) 756-5963
> >fax:  805/ 756-5466
> >e-mail:   xxxxxx@calpoly.edu
> >
> >
> >======================================================================
> >  Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> >  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> >  via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
> >======================================================================
>
> ======================================================================
>  Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
>  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
>  via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
> ======================================================================