 Wow this is a big topic. In many many ways I'm relatively new to MIT all of nine to ten months so any errors I make I put on that my naivety on exactly what goes on but whatever I'm in charge so I take responsibility. I was at the University of Illinois so although we don't have public university here I very much have in my heart University of Illinois, a state, a land grant university and all of the things that they had to deal with in terms of intellectual property economic development as a mission of their university. What I've got today and I'm pleased to say I don't answer directly any of the questions already posited or the considerations to be given but I do offer some perspective and some additional information which I hope you'll find interesting. So we have a quandary I think that's clear. There are many many things about intellectual property that make it complex. Universities tend you know they are focusing on teaching and research and and service in many ways. Economic development in some cases is a mission. I know that President Rice says you know we are first about teaching we are second about research and we are third about innovation and he considers that to be the priority order. That said we have many many things going on at MIT that speak to innovation and entrepreneurship as David mentioned at BC as well. I want to just not that anyone needs any teaching on this but a recent report that Michelle Lee now I believe confirmed as the USPTO director put out which was talking about IP in the US economy and you know these are no new statements to you incentives to invent and create protecting innovators from unauthorized copying facilitating vertical specialization platform for national investments supporting liquidity through mergers supporting licensing based technology business models basically what universities try to do and enabling a more efficient market. One could argue with some of those things in terms of how effective they are but I kind of wanted to put it up there and then match it with you know how important IP intensive industries are to this country and the fact that universities are often the driver of innovation. Now whether or not they are effective in that is an open question I think but they are I believe trying to do the best they can with the tools they're given and the funding that they have and the resources that are applied to that. So what are the concerns and I actually find this really interesting because I got a book a couple of months ago called the branding of the American mind how universities capture manage and monetize intellectual property and why it matters and it's not particularly complementary about the work that I do or my colleagues in terms of what it's trying to achieve but it speaks directly to some of the content of this workshop which is you know engaging in tech transfer is effectively a clashing of missions, money related goals and mission related goals to do with teaching research and getting knowledge out there and the next paragraph to this one in this book said universities own patent may be tempted to license someone on an exclusive basis to only one company as opposed to licensing them cheaply and non-exclusively to anyone willing to pay for a license well I would take issue with that second part that sounds arbitrary I mean I think what we should be talking about is the structure of licenses and how it's done and what's most effective and what's most valuable for society in the way that we do that as opposed to arbitrarily licensing them cheaply and non-exclusively and maybe it's just the tone that got me on that but clearly there is an issue here and the concerns exist and there are universities that don't have the skill set or they don't have some of the capabilities or the tools to help them in that mission so talking of missions we happen to have been working at MIT TLO on developing our mission statement because when I got there I discovered we had two mission statements one on the website and one in one of our books and I thought we can fix that that's an early win but it's still I'm actually presenting it at the at our all staff meeting tomorrow so I'm not going to present it to you beforehand because that would be a big no no but but in doing that we decided to look at other universities mission statements just out of interest to see the language that they used and where their focus was now there was some really short ones we aim to please our customers or we aim to patent technologies which is a little a little slim but I thought it interesting and again not to not to I'm not taking issue with any of these but the intent and if we call it the heart of what tech transfer offices are trying to do is about translation the words that came up were to do with making available and beneficial to society societal benefit fostering economic development promoting economic growth so I say that the true hearts of tech transfer often is trying to do better trying to do good now whether or not we achieve that we can actually question and we can get into that later but if you look at the the mission statements and if you don't believe in mission statements fine but it's supposed to speak to the vision and the values of an of an organization and and in doing that I thought well we actually stole some of the words that was some that we completely ignored in order to kind of get to the heart of what the MIT TLO about which is truly about trying to have impact in society this and I'm jumping all over the place just to keep you on your feet make sure you don't fall asleep this is actually a graphic that's on the Association of University Tech Manager's website and it is a pictorial of the output from the 2015 annual survey that they do every year and it's a one place that everybody goes to see whether or not tech transfer is successful and who's the best best what does that mean we'll talk about that later as well but I thought it was interesting because it gave a sense of how much impact is being had in any one year and I thought well that's a cute graphic but does it really speak to what's been going on over over a number of years and so what I did and you'll have to excuse the crude graphics and my attempt to animation if it fails my apologies in advance but so I took 15 years and I said okay what's gone into this system so this is all from the Association of University Tech Manager's surveys and I think about 190 to 200 universities subscribe in any one year and actually answer the questions asked of them so tech transfer is managing the output from 492 billion in federal funds 225 billion in estate and other foundation funds and about 56 billion in industry funding so that's kind of like our feedstock from that we've received and again during this period 300 000 invention disclosures and again whether or not you find this interesting I thought it was a good starting place for you know the base of what we're talking about in terms of what we're doing with that we're spending 4.3 billion dollars on protecting that some wisely perhaps some wisely another question and recovering 2 billion of that 46 percent and it's commonly known across all universities that we run a loss on what we invest and what we recover through licenses and I always call that our at risk portfolio the price we pay to have a short on go and one can define go in order to try and get technologies out to protect them in order that somebody else will invest in them because it's not an end game patenting something everybody knows that from that we see about 67 000 US patents issued I see the USPTO right in the stone he's probably going to go back and check my stuff afterwards um so we've got so that's the the issued patents and from that we see about 62 000 licenses options executed that's again this is from the data and from that we receive 31 billion in licensing income that excludes I deducted the patent reimbursements which are also considered license income but so it's 33 billion but 2 2 billion of that is patent reimbursements now this is where I did some maths so my apologies if I got this wrong and I'm going way out there with this but I said okay well what what does that mean that's income where did it come from so I did a little calculation and I said okay if and I think if everybody looks at all their licenses typically we are seeing anything from point of a percent to five percent of royalty being taken on net sales and I said okay let me just use two percent so two percent of net sales equals 31 billion so net sales were in the region of one one thousand five hundred and fifty sales revenue in the economy leading to that revenue so what does that mean Leslie I don't have a clue but it speaks to what what we're dealing with what we're managing what we're trying to make sense of and how we're trying to get technologies out there one thousand five hundred and fifty billion dollars of sales revenue isn't a bad job in my view again i'm going to find all of that however let's talk about the real story behind tech transfer and I don't have any newer data but 2012 the top five five percent earners this is not the greatest language but eight universities took 50 percent of the x billion dollars that is earned the top 10 percent 16 universities and that will probably include MIT in stanford in columbia and a few others took nearly three quarters of the system's income and the truth is 84 percent of universities in 2012 did not make enough money to cover their operating costs and over the previous 20 years 87 percent did not break even so if we were investors why the hell would we be doing this so my question is I really believe those mission statements are not my question my statement is I believe those mission statements because nobody in their right mind would invest in something that only 13 percent of the time was going to give them an ROI or a positive ROI all right changing again just keeping you on your toes next we're going to be doing jumping jack so watch out so MIT 800 invention disclosures I can't complain about it I'd love to but everybody else that slap me around the head and say we are barely getting things in the door we can't engage with our faculty they're so hard to work with we have to stop them at the door and say could you please make sure that you actually have an invention before you come to us or a night beyond a concept we think you're great I know you won't start a company but that piece of paper doesn't do it for us this is our this is kind of our world and I wanted to break into this just a little more in our portfolio we have over two and a half thousand us issued patents and of 50 percent of those are licensed I don't know the stats for the rest of the world but I think that's pretty good it may not be great but it's pretty good we've got 50 percent of patents licensed of the pending apps we have about 31 percent license of those that issued just this year we have 217 already and of those 41 percent are licensed I am always looking at that sort of statistic to see whether or not we are out there doing things with the stuff that we have that is current that is just about to be issued that we should be working on to try and find the right partner to get the technology into the marketplace and the and the fy 17 disclosures today we've received probably around 300 this is just a breakdown of the areas people sometimes don't know that we do receive a lot of life sciences and Lauren Foster is here who heads up that group technologies but they're not in the typical therapeutic areas we are dealing with many many other things I know she's going to be talking about that later on particularly medical devices and the like and you notice I'm not saying anything about because I that that is a topic I know it's going to come up later now the other thing again jumping again to a different topic and a question that is often asked these days is what are you doing with sponsored research and who ever licenses that stuff well here's a little analysis 343 inventions arising out with sponsored research that came in between fy 03 and fy 12 for MIT 53 percent is remains unlicensed 10% was exclusively licensed to the sponsor 15% was non exclusively licensed to the sponsor more and more they're asking for those royalty free or capped fees or something non exclusively 11% jointly owned but no license probably them saying that's enough that's all we need and 11% licensed to another party and the struggle we have at the moment is that relationship with the sponsor and how we get those technologies out because if they're not interested in them often they're seen as a bear at the door and it's hard to actually get someone else interested I challenge that in some ways because I think we need to make decisions about how to better structure that to get the technologies into the hands of others without feeling as though they're going to be undermined so my last slide and this is really shallow I mean given all of the things that you said before Yarden and David you were talking about as well as like what considerations do we have as we're licensing technology as we're protecting technology as we're functioning as a tech transfer office as we're thinking philosophically about a role in a university one is that what we are dealing with is so embryonic some of the stuff probably shouldn't be patented we are sometimes putting broad patents in place that we shouldn't even be thinking about putting a piece of paper around and expectation setting our faculty who think that when they submit to us we should immediately get a piece of paper for them and begin the route to the patent office I don't believe that we should I think there's a big cultural issue there and it's not because folks at MIT or anyplace else these days want to hang these things on the wall it actually speaks to the role of tech transfer officers beyond patenting helping start companies helping students moving into this other other domain where biz dev and all of these other cool things are happening NSF I core you know the things that are really bridging the gap tech transfer offices are being pulled into that more and more and then the reduction in federal funding that is really pushing it was the real reason that I put in the sponsored research slide towards corporate sponsored research but we don't seem to be doing that very well either because we're not getting the engagement we need and and there's a whole load of questions around that is it the corporate sponsors is it our structure of licenses what is it about that what is what what can we do better there and then open innovation which is a huge area of which there are many many initiatives that we are both participating in and trying to work out because open innovation means so many different things to so many people and that's my slides it thank you