Proposal

THE EVOLUTION, EXPANSION, AND EFFECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

RIGHTS AT AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: A HISTORICAL

CONTEXT OF LEGISLATION AND CASE LAW AT

HARVARD AND YALE UNIVERSITIES

Lucia A. Lary-Shipley

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University

2021

THE EVOLUTION, EXPANSION, AND EFFECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

RIGHTS AT AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: A HISTORICAL

CONTEXT OF LEGISLATION AND CASE LAW AT

HARVARD AND YALE UNIVERSITIES

by Lucia A. Lary-Shipley

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2021

APPROVED BY:

Travis H. Bradshaw, Ph.D., Committee Chair

J. Gregory Lawson, J.D., Ed.D., Ph.D., Committee Member

ABSTRACT

This dissertation used a historical research method to examine the rise of the centuries-long

complex construct of intellectual property ownership through the lenses of American institutions

of higher learning and the American legal system, the latter of which attributing its involvement

in intellectual property rights once the principle of ownership became equated with the profit of

ownership. Because universities are the traditional factories for innovation, this phenomenon

within this expanse of time can be better understood by focusing on two historical research

institutions. The universities of Harvard and Yale were explored due to their operational and

intellectual property experiences mirroring the emergence of intellectual property ownership

laws in America. Harvard University and Yale University have a shared history and have both

gone from simple seminaries producing regional ministers to conglomerates producing research

and development that yields potentially lucrative innovations.

The purpose of this historical study was to describe how university intellectual property

ownership interests began and how these contributed to, and interacted with, case law and

legislation ultimately giving rise to the commercialization of collegiate-driven knowledge at the

colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale. This study used historical documents such as seminal

legal cases specific to Harvard and Yale, as well as, intellectual property rights legislation,

supporting case law, and various texts. These, along with theory and secondary sources,

provided a foundation for an ideological and cultural study of intellectual property ownership

rights within two American higher education institutions.

Keywords: intellectual property rights in higher education, intellectual property law,

higher education law, Harvard lawsuits, Yale lawsuits, Harvard history, Yale history

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to many. First, I dedicate this work to my cherished family

– my husband of nearly 31 years, Stephen Shipley, MBA, BA; my son, Stephen Charles Shipley,

II., MA, BS; my daughter, Laryssa Antoinette Shipley, PhD Candidate, MA, BA; my son, Scott

Christian Shipley, JD Candidate, BBA; and, my son, Sean Carson Shipley, BS and soon-to-be

master’s degree student. You are each my beating heart.

To my children: being your mother will always be the accomplishment of which I am

most proud. Your precious lives, and every little thing about you, exceed anything your father

and I could have ever imagined. You were always wonderful children and now you have

become incredible adults. You are unconditionally loved and I am so proud of each one of you –

not because of what you have done, but because of who you are. Thank you for all of your love,

support, and sacrifices so that I could fulfill this goal.

To my husband: we did it. By the grace of God, in one generation, we have used

education to change the trajectory of our family so that it more closely aligns with the lives,

accomplishments, and faith traditions of our extended family members and mentors. Thank you

for your abiding love and the steadfast belief in the life that we could build together. I cannot

imagine walking life’s journey with anyone other than you.

Second, I dedicate this research to our extended family members and family friends who

were always in the background as quiet role models demonstrating the true value of education is

in the doing, not in the saying. Your higher education experiences; scholarly pursuits;

professional achievements; cultural interests and contributions; community involvement;

respectful and calm demeanors; and fearless, steady, and mature faiths culminated into

beautifully balanced lives. I remain enraptured and enriched by your examples. Thank you for

exposing me to a world of possibilities.

Third, I posthumously dedicate this dissertation to my supportive father who passed away

in 2002. My father was always actively interested in what I was researching and considering for

my career. It was very important to him to have a daughter who could support herself. I miss

our conversations and I miss him. I also dedicate this work to my mother and thank her for

instilling in me the strongest of work ethics and for giving me 10 years of piano lessons, without

which I think my fingers would have long fallen off from typing.

Fourth, I dedicate this work to all women, especially mothers, who are in doctoral

programs. You are striving to better yourself and achieve a traditionally, male-dominated goal

while supporting your spouse, guiding your children, and loving each one as if they are your sole

focus. During your doctoral program, holidays and birthdays have been celebrated; memories

have been created; moves have been orchestrated; unexpected news has been dealt with; health

issues have been addressed; jobs have required attention; prior commitments have continued;

household projects have been undertaken; the ugliness of politics has been witnessed; futures

have been worried over; and you have survived a pandemic (and everything that goes with it).

You are tired. You study, write papers, research, and read late into the night so that everything

gets done and everyone else’s life feels as normal as possible.

Perhaps you have people in your life who you thought would support you but who may

actually resent the time and energy you put into your doctoral program. These people might

grow uninterested or impatient with your educational endeavors. Or, they may act perplexed that

you would even desire this goal in the first place or even try to make you feel guilty about

focusing on yourself. Or worse, they may continually feign forgetfulness that you are in a

doctoral program altogether. I know this can be disheartening and disappointing. However, this

is just manipulative noise – a distraction intended to refocus your attention back on them, and in

so doing, give up on your doctoral goals. Remember this: if you feel God is blessing your efforts

and has brought you this far, have courage. You have all the support you need. Do not allow

negativity to interfere with what you are trying to achieve. Persevere. Keep going and know

that you are only defeated if you quit. Never quit. Know that you have sisters out there who are

thinking of you, pulling for you, and regularly praying for you. If we can do it, you can, too.

Fifth, and finally, a somewhat silly dedication is reserved for our family’s two little dogs,

Miguel and Tulio. Every day, my “muses” evoke lots of laughter; and, while working on this

dissertation, they provided hours upon hours of loyal companionship.

Acknowledgments

At Liberty University, I have been blessed with many helpful and encouraging

professors. A very special thanks is given to Dr. Jeffrey Savage for all of the one-on-one

time spent in helping me get my doctoral program off to a solid start. Also, I offer my

sincerest thanks to Dr. John R. Duryea, Dr. Timothy J. Fobbs, and Dr. Gary Smith. Each of

whom agreed to my interviewing them; and, each imparted valuable information and advice

that carried me through my program. Thank you all for the impact you had on my doctoral

journey.

Additionally, my deepest thanks are directed to my dissertation committee chair, Dr.

Travis H. Bradshaw. I am indebted to you for all of your help, support, and counsel. Thank

you for sharing your expertise with me, advocating for me, and believing in me. I also wish

to sincerely thank Dr. J. Gregory Lawson for joining my dissertation committee and

offering your polymathic insight and guidance. Next, a special note of thanks is given to

Dr. Kurt Michael for his wisdom and leadership in approving the School of Education’s

first historical analysis Ph.D. dissertation. I hope you are pleased with the product.

Lastly, a posthumous acknowledgment is designated for Mr. Robert H. Mullen, my

father’s best friend and my “godfather.” Even though he passed away in 1993, he knew this

day was coming and unbeknownst to me, set aside a trust fund to finance it. I am forever

grateful. I thank him for being a part of my life from the first day I drew breath until the

last day of his own. He and his mother, Mrs. Annie Bea Mullen (an educator who was

ahead of her time with her independent personality and own educational pursuits) have had

a lasting impact on me.

9 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3 
Copyright Page.................................................................................................................................4 
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................5 
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................8 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................12 
Overview ............................................................................................................................12 
Background ........................................................................................................................13 
Problem Statement .............................................................................................................39 
Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................41 
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................41 
Research Questions ............................................................................................................42 
            Methods..............................................................................................................................45 
Definitions..........................................................................................................................48 
Summary ............................................................................................................................51 
CHAPTER TWO: EVOLUTION OF “MINE”: 1630-1800 ..........................................................53 
Overview ............................................................................................................................53 
The Origin and Necessitation of Translatio Studii ............................................................54 
Seeking Veritas: The Founding of Harvard .......................................................................58 
Seeking Veritas by Shining Lux: The Founding of Yale ...................................................66 
English Common Law in the Colonies ..............................................................................72 
English Common Law Intellectual Property Cases ...........................................................76 
Law and Intellectual Property Legislation .........................................................................78 

10 
 
 
 
Summary ............................................................................................................................80 
CHAPTER THREE: EXPANSION: A NEW STRUCTURE OF OWNERSHIP ESTABLISHED 
IN LAW AND EMBEDDED IN CULTURE, 1801-1976 ............................................................81 
Overview ............................................................................................................................81 
American Legal and Economic Systems ...........................................................................82 
Intellectual Property Legislation ........................................................................................84 
Case Law ............................................................................................................................91 
Sociocultural Influences.....................................................................................................99 
Religious Attitudes...........................................................................................................105 
Mission Statements Revised ............................................................................................107 
Summary ..........................................................................................................................108 
CHAPTER FOUR: THE RISE OF DOMINIUM: 1977-2020 ....................................................110 
Overview ..........................................................................................................................110 
Honoring Innovation or Hoarding Knowledge ................................................................110 
Mission Statements Once Again Revised ........................................................................111 
Intellectual Property Policies Developed  ........................................................................112 
Common Good in Communities ......................................................................................113 
University Discoveries become Intellectual Capital ........................................................115 
Economic Impact of Intellectual Capital .........................................................................120 
Legislation........................................................................................................................123 
Case Law ..........................................................................................................................125 
Notable Case Law ............................................................................................................135 
Summary ..........................................................................................................................140 

11 
 
 
 
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION..............................................................................................141 
Overview ..........................................................................................................................141 
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................141 
Discussion of Interpretations ...........................................................................................146 
Implications......................................................................................................................150 
Delimitations and Limitations ..........................................................................................153 
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................155 
Summary ..........................................................................................................................156 
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................158 
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................183 
 
 
 
   

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

At its core, innovation is the propelling of an idea from the mind into the shared human

experience. Once flung from its cerebral sanctuary, the exposed innovation takes on various

forms representing art, music, literary works, theater, dance, scientific discoveries, medical

breakthroughs, and new technologies (Landes & Posner, 2003; World Intellectual Property

Organization, n.d.). Each of these original creations wishing to weave itself into the fabric that

becomes humanity’s culture and desiring to make a significant statement or an impactful

difference. For the past several centuries, innovations have been birthed within the confines of

university walls – a place where creativity and research naturally meet. Their product,

intellectual property, has grown into an essentially contested, or at least a contestable, concept

(Clarke, 1979; Gallie, 1956). Because of the complexities surrounding the construct of

intellectual property, its very existence has been debated. Understanding that property of the

imagination does not equate to imaginary property is essential for grasping the totality of this

analysis and determining what produced intellectual property rights interests and how these

contributed to legislation and case law, which moved Harvard and Yale from former colonial

colleges to modern commercialized enterprises. Therefore, this first chapter is foundational and

introduces the historical, social, and theoretical bases for the intellectual property construct.

Next, the context of this historical study is addressed in the problem statement section. The

purpose statement follows and indicates the intentions of this research. The significance of the

study and central research question are then relayed. The remaining sections include an

explanation of historical research methods and definitions of relevant terms. Finally, the chapter

concludes with a summary.

Background

In 1774, an Edinburgh, Scotland lawyer described intellectual property as nonsense

(Boswell, 1774). Similarly, the contemporary French-Swiss film director, Jean-Luc Godard

famously remarked about his work, “There is no such thing as intellectual property” (Gibbons,

2011). To help bridge the concept of innovations of the intellect towards something more

tangible, the term “property” was assigned to the construct (Khong, 2006). Purposefully

identifying the construct as property gives the connotation that intellectual property is as real as

its physical property counterpart and legal protections and remedies should be expected by the

owner(s) (Khong, 2006). This interplay of law and language is imperative as it balances the

purpose of intellectual property development: to promote intellectual property innovation

through the use of protective rights while ensuring these rights are not so restrictive that they

inhibit intellectual goods from reaching the marketplace (Goldstein & Reese, 2008). Legal

discourse, such as this, embodies power and ownership grants considerable control (Cohen,

1935). These elements create an economic potential for the innovation, thereby incentivizing

intellectual property ownership disputes for the generating institution. Supporting the foundation

upon which this research is built are historical, social, and theoretical footings. Together, these

provide the background as to how the intellectual property construct has (a) historically evolved

over time, (b) given rise to changing social environments, and (c) been underpinned by

theoretical principles.

Historical Basis

“The American law of intellectual property can be fully understood only if its roots are

known, and court decisions in this field have examined these roots again and again for guidance”

(Bugbee, 1967, p. vi). Because understanding the historical roots of intellectual property is

imperative for grasping intellectual property case law and legislation discussed in subsequent

chapters, the historical basis of the intellectual property construct is necessary for this analysis.

As long as humans have inhabited the planet, they have been creating – whether out of

necessity, obligation, curiosity, connectivity, ritual, self-expression, or fulfillment (Fogarty,

Creanza, & Feldman, 2015; Morriss-Kay, 2009; Plato, 375/2003). Each circumstance giving

individuals the opportunity to make their presence known, leave their mark, and remind future

generations that at the time their creative work was produced, they were living at the height of

civilization. Examples span centuries and include prehistoric cave art depicting drawings and

recording pictorial stories; decorative jewelry using bone and minerals; increasingly ingenious

Stone Age cookware, tools, and weaponry; and sophisticated mathematically based renderings

for structures like Khufu’s Great Pyramid at Giza – gracing the sandy Egyptian horizon since

2560 BCE (Collins, 2001). Also, there are various ancient literary works such as the Bronze

Age’s Sumerian poem the “Epic of Gilgamesh;” the Greek Tragedian Sophocles’ plays, like

“Oedipus Rex” in 429 BCE; and research and world knowledge documented on thousands of

papyrus scrolls collected and archived at the Library of Alexandria beginning in 283 BCE

(Dalley, 2000; Erskine, 1995; Knox, 1956). Additionally, there are numerous examples of

technological and medical discoveries. Two of which are the Antikythera mechanism (an early

analog computer) and important advances in anatomy and neurology made in 162 CE by the

Roman Empire medical and philosophical researcher Galen of Pergamon (modern day Turkey)

who expanded upon the earlier work of Hippocrates (Nutton, 1973; Swedin & Ferro, 2007).

Further into the Common Era, the ancient Old English poem of “Beowulf” was drafted

sometime between the 8th and 11th centuries followed by Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury

Tales” in the late 14th century (Chase, 1997; Pearsall, 1992). A surge of significant scientific

discoveries, magnificent works of art, memorable works in literature, technological

breakthroughs, and unique innovations would ensue. The collective, of which, begetting the first

modern inclination towards ownership of intellectual property.

Medieval creations. While there were claims seeking intellectual property legal

protection for specific creations during the Middle Ages, the circumstances surrounding these

claims fall short of meeting the contemporary interpretation of the purpose of intellectual

property law, which is to promote progress (Bugbee, 1967; Dumbauld, 1968; U.S. Const. art. I, §

8, cl. 8). Therefore, the modern concept of one’s innovative work (a) being assigned ownership

rights, (b) potentially receiving economic compensation, and (c) spurring further innovations for

the benefit of society is a root that would not emerge as a stem until the Age of Discovery – the

Renaissance Era.

Italian Renaissance patents and copyrights. In 1421, a Republic of Florence architect,

Filippo Brunelleschi, created a new system for loading cargo on ships sailing the Arno River

(Bugbee, 1967). His contraption was ingenious to the point that he sought legal protection for

his design and product. On June 19, 1421, Brunelleschi was awarded the first true patent for

invention (Bugbee, 1967). Five decades later, a codified patent system was established in the

Republic of Venice with the Venetian Patent Statute on March 19, 1474 (Ladas, 1975). This

statute provided patent protection for those who created an entirely original and innovative

device (Ladas, 1975). Following the Venetian Patent Statute, the Republic of Venice

government recognized the need for copyright protection, as well. On September 1, 1486, the

first copyright was awarded to author Marco Antonio Sabellico (Marcus Antonius Sabellicus) for

“Decades rerum Ventarum” translated from Latin to English as “Decades of Wind,” which was

Sabellico’s history of Venice (Bugbee, 1967). Some one hundred years later, the concept of

owning intellectual property crossed the English Channel into England. Another Italian, Jacopo

Aconcio, a former law student and secretary to the Catholic Cardinal/Milan Governor Cristoforo

Madruzzo became interested in the Protestant Reformation (O’Malley, 1945). Fearing his

feelings could lead to charges of heresy by the newly installed Pope Paul IV, he fled to

Switzerland in 1557 (O’Malley, 1945). There, he learned engineering from English tradesmen

(the Marian exiles) who had escaped persecution under the fervently Catholic, Queen Mary.

Upon Mary’s death, her half-sister Queen Elizabeth I ascended to the throne. This Protestant

monarch recruited engineers, like Aconcio, to strengthen strongholds along the English and

Scottish border (White, 1967). Once there in 1558, Aconcio requested Queen Elizabeth I grant

him a patent for his water wheel machine used for marsh draining and dredging in 1558 (Bugbee,

1967; White, 1967). On September 7, 1565, the patent was finally issued, leading the way for

the Statute of Monopolies Act of 1624 and laying the foundation for the English patent system

(Bugbee, 1967). Not until 1710 would copyright be officially recognized with the Copyright Act

of 1710/ Statute of Anne (Bugbee, 1967). The increased use of the printing press necessitated

moving copyright ownership protections from the private sector into regulatory oversight

provided by the government through parliament and the judiciary (Patterson, 1968). Hence,

because of the proactivity of Brunelleschi, Sabellico, and Aconcio, the origin story of patent and

Colonial America’s patents and copyrights. By the time England began colonizing the

Atlantic coast of North America, the English patent system was functioning and issuing patents.

For the colonies, though, the process was to be completed within each colony through the

relevant governing body. Therefore, when Samuel Winslow, of the Massachusetts Bay Colony,

invented a new method for processing salt, it was the Massachusetts General Court in Boston

that reviewed his petition for a patent (Bugbee, 1967; Cortada, 1998). On June 2, 1641,

Winslow’s patent (with a limited duration of ten years) became the first patent issued in the New

World (Cortada, 1998).

Regarding colonial copyrights, these would occur much sooner than those granted in

England under their Copyright Act of 1710/ Statute of Anne. On May 15, 1672, the

Massachusetts General Court once again made intellectual property ownership history by issuing

the first copyright granted in any of the colonies (Bugbee, 1967; Patry, 1994). It was issued to

John Usher, a Boston bookseller who petitioned the Court for printing privileges (Bugbee, 1967;

Patry, 1994). He intended to print the laws of the colony; however, he was concerned that other

publishers may try to print the laws, as well (Bugbee, 1967; Patry, 1994). To mitigate market

undermining, Usher sought legal protection. The Court viewed this printing privilege (with its

seven-year duration) as a societal benefit, thereby introducing the modern concept of copyright

to the colonies (Bugbee, 1967; Patry, 1994). While Winslow’s patent and Usher’s copyright

were the first of their kind in Colonial America, scores more would immediately follow.

By 1775, while still a senior at Yale, David Bushnell invented not only a novel

contraption, but one that had practical defense applications (Kelly, 2013). Bushnell contrived the

first combat submarine - a one-man, pedal-powered submersible vehicle called “Turtle” (Kelly,

2013; Swanson, 1991). Along with Bushnell proving that gunpowder could explode under water

and his spiral propeller invention, “Turtle” was designed to stealthily approach a British ship

(Swanson, 1991). Once there, the submarine pilot could use an auger to drill a small hole in its

hull. Into the hole, a time bomb could be inserted (Swanson, 1991). The hope was that the

explosion would significantly cripple the British ship. Unfortunately, it malfunctioned on its

first day of use and was brought back into the New York Harbor where it was discovered by the

British and sunk (Swanson, 1991).

A new nation. The American Revolution not only brought novel ideas on the formation

of a more perfect union based on liberalism and republicanism, but it also expanded on the value

of independent ownership (Adams, 1776; Locke, 1689; Paine, 1776). These intellectual property

expressions resulted in federal legal protections for patents, copyrights, and finally, trademarks.

Patents and copyrights. On March 26, 1784, the first general patent system was created

by the state of South Carolina entitled, “An Act for the Encouragement of Arts and Sciences”

which gave legal patent protection for the duration of 14 years (National Research Council,

1993). In the years between the declaration of this nation’s independence from England in 1776

and the drafting of its eventual Constitution in 1787, several states followed the recommendation

of the Continental Congress of 1783 to embrace the Natural Rights advocated for by Locke’s

(1689) theory of life, liberty, and happiness and reiterated by Thomas Jefferson in his

enlightened draft of the Declaration of Independence (Bugbee, 1967). Accordingly, James

Madison and the Committee of Detail addressed intellectual property in Article I of the

Constitution by giving Congress the power “To promote the progress of science and useful arts,

by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective

writings and discoveries” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). This exact verbiage was agreed upon

sans debate and still speaks to the overall objective of Congress, which is to promote the

progress of society (Bugbee, 1967; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). With the Constitution now

complete and the new nation’s independence secure, Congress passed two pieces of intellectual

property legislation in 1790. On April 10, President George Washington signed into law

America’s first federal patent law; and, one month later, on May 31, the first federal copyright

law, the Copyright Clause, followed (Bugbee, 1967). Since then, revisions to both laws have

been repeatedly revised; although, the grounding protection of granting exclusive rights to the

creator for a specified amount of time has remained constant.

Trademarks. Originally, colonial Common Law, and then various state laws and even

international treaties, provided citizens of the new republic a measure of protection for

trademarks. The notion, though, of a federally protected trademark would be brought forth by a

Boston sailcloth manufacturing group in 1791 (Jefferson, 1903). This group petitioned Congress

and their request was forwarded to Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. Secretary Jefferson

recommended a trademark be issued through the Commerce Clause, which would have given

exclusive rights to the trademark holder and encouraged interstate commerce (Jefferson, 1903).

Despite this logic, Congress would not fully take up the matter of trademarks until decades later.

Once on the other side of the Civil War in 1870, and while revisions were being made to the

patent law and copyright law, Congress passed a trademark statute as part of the Copyright

Clause (Patry, 1994). This statute, though, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court one

year later, which sent Congress back to mull over the trademark protections once again (Patry,

1994). This time, they took Jefferson’s previous recommendation under advisement and passed

the Trademark Act pursuant to the Commerce Clause (Patry, 1994). It would be revised again in

1905. In 1946, the Lanham Act gave the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

the authority to register all trademarks (Brown, 1999).

Trade secrets. Finally, to round out this historical basis of intellectual property

ownership, trade secrets must be included. The necessitation of modern trade secret ownership

rights would first become apparent in England in 1817 by way of Newbery v. James (Steiner,

1905). This lawsuit brought attention to trade secrets; however, only damages were awarded

(Steiner, 1905). Similarly, in the United Sates in 1837, Vickery v. Welch resulted in an award of

damages only (Steiner, 1905). Injunctive relief, or an injunction, would be made available for

plaintiffs at subsequent trade secret trials. The legal remedy of an injunction goes beyond the

award of monetary damages (if any) and, by court order, protects against irreparable harm from

occurring if a specified act or behavior by the defendant is allowed to continue (Black, 2016).

These are usually indicative of extreme circumstances and are nowadays subject to an immediate

review by an appellate court in a preliminary injunction (Black, 2016). The first injunction was

used in England in 1820 in the trade secret case of Yovatt v. Winyard (Steiner, 1905). In the

United States, it would not be until 1866 in Taylor v. Blanchard that an injunction would be

sought (Steiner, 1905). From here, states increasingly created laws to address trade secret

protections. In 1939, all of the states’ trade secrets legislation were compiled into a reference

work by the American Law Institute entitled the Reinstatement of Torts (Sandeen, 2010). Forty

years later, in 1979, many states adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Stealing trade secrets,

however, did not become a federal crime until 1996 with the Economic Espionage Act.

In 2016, federal provisions were finally given by the enactment of the Defend Trade

Secrets Act. The effect of this federal law was threefold: (a) it finally addressed the

misappropriations of trade secrets, thereby allowing prosecutions to be pursued in a federal

court, (b) it allowed for the preliminary seizure of property associated with the spreading of the

trade secret, and (c) it provided additional legal remedies in the form of royalties, exemplary

damages, and broad injunction powers to be used at the federal government’s discretion

(Sandeen, 2010). This law not only pertains to trade secret misappropriations occurring within

the United States, but it extends liability to those incidents occurring outside of the United States,

as well (Sandeen, 2010).

Moving from the historical basis of intellectual property ownership, the social and

cultural factors of the Puritans who would create the colleges that would one day benefit from

holding intellectual property, is examined next.

Sociocultural Context

Critical to a deeper understanding as to what produced intellectual property rights

interests and how these contributed to legislation and case law moving the institutions of Harvard

and Yale from seminaries to syndicates, a transition from the historical basis of intellectual

property ownership to an analysis of the sociocultural environment is necessary. For the

founders of the colleges of Harvard and Yale, this milieu includes their (a) physical setting, (b)

religious attitude, (c) social setting, (d) education pedagogy, (e) economic system, and (f)

political ideology. Together, these establish context for the intellectual property construct.

Physical setting. Motivating a move from England’s undulating landscape of the

southeast and the rolling hills of the west to the craggy shores and forested inland of New

England was the hope of religious freedom. Crossing the rough Atlantic waters and relying on

prayers and immune systems to ward off on-board illnesses, a completely natural setting awaited

the Puritans. As far as their weary eyes could see, not a single human-made permanent structure

was visible (Gatta, 2004). The sight, while daunting, must have beckoned the imaginings of

possibilities. The void of physical property did not last long. Immediately, the group set about

bending the land to their will and carving a new life in this new land. It was 1630; and, unlike

many failed colonies before them, the Puritans moved entire family units en masse (Gatta, 2004).

Willing to risk safety and stability, the new inhabitants to this new world were met with

uncertainty by the Indigenous population. While the English Puritans claimed this virgin land as

their own and viewed their colony as a “shining city upon a hill,” the Native Americans would

not have a reference point for understanding the Puritans’ feelings of exceptionalism, their nod to

Israel, and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount parable of salt and light found in Matthew 5:13-16

(Bremer, 2003; Winthrop, 1630; Winthrop, Dudley, Allin, Shepard, & Cotton, 1696).

To this land’s original caretakers, the Puritans’ arrival would have felt like a jarring

intrusion upon their land, culture, and people. Tentativeness turned to tension, yielding an

incredibly complicated relationship spanning centuries. Nonetheless, this land would become

the Massachusetts Bay Colony - property chartered by England. Six and eight years later, the

Connecticut River Colony and New Haven Colony were established, respectively, making the

Puritans’ providential lands their permanent homes and furthering this foreign soil into

resembling the towns they left behind (Winthrop et al., 1696). This time, though, there were two

salient distinctions. Here, they could pursue promising land investment opportunities and fulfill

a covenant to worship as they pleased (Winthrop et al., 1696).

Religious attitude. A seemingly evident, yet entirely radical, concept set into motion

enormous religious, intellectual, cultural, and political changes: priesthood of the believer. This

upheaval resulted in the 16th century European Protestant Reformation Movement led by Martin

Luther of Germany, John Calvin of France, and King Henry VIII of England, among others who

all questioned the Catholic’s Church’s sole authority in determining Christian practices

(Marshall, 2017). According to Brigden (2000) and Scrisbrick (1997), though, Henry VIII’s

interest in the English Reformation originated primarily from his eagerness to dissolve another

marriage due to deeming his wives as problematic to his fathering three daughters and losing

eight sons. According to Scrisbrisck (1997), the Reformation provided a convenient work-

around from having additional wives beheaded or having to lower himself to seek papal

permission for further annulments. With England joining the Reformation, the Church of

England was created, and King Henry VIII placed himself at its head (Marshall, 2017).

The Puritans who would colonize Massachusetts would have been this generation’s

children and grandchildren. They were among a sect of Protestants who held that the Church of

England did not reform fully enough (Marshall, 2017; Spurr, 1998). The Puritans wanted to go

beyond not having a priestly mediator and move towards ridding the church of the many formal

traditions, ritualistic practices, and Catholic symbols that still lingered inside the Church of

England (Spurr, 1998). Therefore, the Puritan objective was to purge and purify their church and

practice biblical doctrine with precision (Spurr, 1998). Like the Pilgrims, the Puritans were

Calvinists (Wallace, 2004). They adhered to a belief system that meant Jesus did not die for all

who accepted and believed in Him, but rather He died only for those who God had preselected

(Wallace, 2004). Further, communion was only for those they regarded as worthy (Spurr, 1998).

Despite Pilgrims and Puritans both believing in the congregationalist way (a democratic

and autonomous way of conducting itself through a covenant with God), the two sects diverged

in how they viewed their role as parishioners of the Church of England (Collier & Collier, 2012).

Pilgrims were Separatists who wanted to separate completely from the Church of England;

therefore, they began worshipping externally and in secret, which was a punishable offense since

every citizen was required to attend services at their local Anglican church (Collier & Collier,

2012). This would ultimately motivate their move to the Netherlands and later to the Plymouth

Colony (Collier & Collier, 2012). By contrast, the Puritans were Congregationalists and

presumed they could change the Church of England by remaining members and influencing an

internal change towards the congregationalist way (Collier & Collier, 2012). Eventually, they,

too, turned their eyes towards America; and, when given the opportunity to colonize a new land

that could yield favorable investment returns and enable them to commence their worship

without close oversight, they took it (Spurr, 1998). The idea of starting over was appealing,

especially with their earning questionable reputations in the eyes of the Anglican majority (Lund,

2001).

Social setting. Prior to their making landfall in Massachusetts, an appreciable social

stigma enshrouded the Puritans in their homeland of England (Lund, 2001). Contrary to the

Puritan’s claims of following God’s Word with precision, the reality demonstrated by the

Puritans’ social behavior ran afoul of biblical teachings. According to Lund (2001), they were

regarded as suspicious due to their questionable, but acceptable, practices of being “deceptive,

dishonest, and crafty” towards their English Protestant peers (p. iv).

Meaning “peace” in Hebrew, once docked on the shores of “Salem” to establish the

Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630, the Puritans embraced their new-found dominance over all

social structures (Winthrop, 1997). This clean slate enabled them to not only continue their

Puritan-approved activities, but also explore new ones. Laws and traditions crossing the Atlantic

included requiring church attendance all day on Sundays; capitalizing on chattel slavery; viewing

marriage as a social contract rather than a religious covenant, which kept potential divorces

uncomplicated; and practicing bundling prior to marriage, which caused one in 10 females to

give birth to full-term infants within the first eight months of their marriages (Foster, 1999;

Spurr, 1998; Stiles & Aurand, 1928; Warren, 2016).

Believing that they shared an exclusive covenant with God causing them to be directly

accountable for all social interactions within their new community, pressure from erring (or even

perceived erring) from Puritan norms became a catalyst for new customs (Main, 2001; Pestana,

1983). Some examples of these include a persistent opinion that Quakers were heretics who

believed in gender equality, and as such, must be kept out of Boston (Pestana, 1983). If caught

within the town, punishment in the forms of ear amputation, imprisonment, and death was swift

– until England intervened and told the Puritans that all Christians were to be treated fairly

(except those who practiced Catholicism) (Pestana, 1983). Additionally, those Puritans found

guilty of engaging in adulterous acts were punished by execution (Main, 2001). Additionally,

celebratory activities, such as celebrating birthdays, were not allowed. The World Book of

Encyclopedia Volume Three (1993) traces this to “The early Christians did not celebrate His [the

Messiah’s] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom”

(p. 416). This created a two-pronged complication for the celebration of Christmas. It was not

only the celebration of a birth, but it also was placed on the calendar to coincide with the existing

present pagan feast of Saturnalia in order to help people seamlessly transition from the old pagan

festivity to the new Christian one (Daniels, 1995). Hence, the court order, “Penalty for Keeping

Christmas” (1659) outlawed all Christmas celebrations, decorations, and caroling in the

Massachusetts Bay Colony. Disobeying this directive resulted in a fine of five shillings;

dishonoring God was given as the reason (Daniels, 1995).

As much as God was at the forefront of their minds, so, too was Satan. Because they

held that the devil could physically walk among them, women posed a greater danger to society

than men (Bremer, 2009). The pertinacious thought was since women were weaker in mind and

body, they could fall from grace more easily. The hierarchy of their social structure was men

were inferior to God and women were inferior to men (Evans, 1997). Other social threats

beyond the omnipresent devil, were fairies, witches, and creatures from folkloric stories (Kramer

& Sprenger, 1486). This created a social environment where religious symbols used in

conjunction with God, church, and worship were forbidden while apotropaic symbols were

widely accepted as a home’s primary defense against intrusion of witches (Kramer & Sprenger,

1486). With superstitions running rampant, it is not surprising that the Puritans’ daily lives were

centered on a careful balance of fear and faith.

Education pedagogy. Back in England, the University of Oxford (n.d.) began its 534th

year of operation; 20 years had passed since Galileo Galilei sighted four of Jupiter’s moons; 14

years had passed since the untimely death of William Shakespeare, but not before his basing

“The Tempest” on the Pilgrim’s Stephen Hopkins failed attempt to settle Jamestown, Virginia;

and The British Civil War was imminent, which resulted in the execution of King Charles I in

1649 (Kelsey, 2003; Shakespeare, 2000; Sharratt, 2008). Elsewhere around the world, it had

been 200 years since Johannes Gutenberg of Germany invented the printing press, which is

credited with increasing literacy across Europe and 120 years since Michelangelo painted the

ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (Febvre & Martin, 1997; Pfisterer, 2018). Further into the 17th

century, the Palace of Versailles would undergo a major remodel and Isaac Newton became a

professor at the University of Cambridge (Lacaille, 2012; White, 1998). These intellectual

milestones and achievements are some of which the educated Puritans would have been well-

aware. It only makes sense, then, that within six years of setting foot on their new land, they

would recognize the importance of combining their past and emerging cultures through

education.

Gutek (1995) describes education as “a process that attempts to ensure the cultural

continuation of group, race, or nation… it transmits skills, knowledge, modes of inquiry, and

values from the mature to the immature” (p. 10). Unlike the Pilgrims who were largely illiterate,

the Puritans placed a high value on education simply because literacy was essential for a deeper

understanding of the Bible (Daniels, 1993; Demos, 1999; Education in Massachusetts Bay,

2020). Further, Daniels (1993) indicates that 60% of all colonial Puritans were proficient

readers, which made them the most literate people in the world. By comparison, only 30% of the

population in England was literate (Daniels, 1993).

Due to the integral nature of their faith, religious instruction was interwoven into all

coursework and served as a motivation to help children, who were expected to behave as small

adults, adjust to colonial life (Moran & Vinovskis, 1985). Because children were viewed as

inherently flawed, much attention was spent on their moral training both at home and at school

(Moran & Vinovskis, 1985). While all were educated, gender and social status determined the

level of educational attainment (Bremer, 2009). In fact, any town comprised of 50 or more

households was required by law to hire a teacher (Bremer, 2009). Instruction for boys of lower-

class populations focused on reading, writing, and performing basic mathematical functions so

that they were prepared to manage their future households and contribute to Puritan society

(Cremin, 1970). This was the typical education available to girls, as well. For a fee, girls could

attend a Dame School taught in the home of a female community member (Cremin, 1970).

Boys of upper-class families would have opportunities to go beyond the basic skills of

reading, writing, and arithmetic. They would go on to study the Classics by learning Latin and

Greek in potential preparation for higher education (Bremer, 2009). On April 25, 1635, the town

of Boston established America’s first, and longest running, public school (Rexine, 1977).

Boston Latin School began by providing education for boys under the instruction of male

teachers and under the supervision of Reverend John Cotton, who was the father of Increase

Mather (eventual Harvard alumnus, pastor, and president of Harvard who was involved in the

Salem Witch Trials) and grandfather of Cotton Mather (eventual Harvard alumnus and pastor

who also influenced the Salem Witch Trials) (Rexine, 1977). Girls would have to wait until

1972 before being included in the Boston Latin School experience (Boston Latin School History,

n.d.). It was from this school that many of Harvard’s early students derived (Boston Latin

School History, n.d.).

Because the Puritans deemed worship as a critical component of their daily lives, the

need to found seminaries to produce ministers to serve the growing number of citizens soon

became evident (Morison, 1935). Using the Geneva Bible and the European structure of

universities as guides, Harvard, and later Yale, were established (Buckley, 2017; Morison, 1935).

While most professions in the colonies did not require higher education training, those males

wanting to explore other disciplines besides theology would return to England to pursue study at

Oxford or Cambridge (Morison, 1935). At this point in colonial education, the construct of

intellectual property and its eventual economic benefit to an institution was still in its infancy.

Economic system. It began as a joint stock company venture – an investment

opportunity to own foreign land claimed by England. However, the majority of those emigrating

claimed religious and political freedoms above economic opportunity (Hart, 1927). Many of

these immigrants acquiring these new land holdings were descendants of economically

affluential and politically influential English gentry (Hart, 1927). Most were wealthy in their

own rights and were experienced merchants or skilled craftsmen who not only migrated with

their wives and children, but also with their apprentices and servants (Hart, 1927). Clearly, they

came prepared to establish the new colony’s economy.

Realizing that dependence on shipments of goods from England was not sustainable, the

Puritans began businesses based on fur trapping, lumber trading, barrel making, shoe cobbling,

canning, wool spinning, fish mongering, and ship building (Hart, 1927; Labaree, 1979). Soon,

trade was established with other colonies, England, and greater Europe. Timber was especially

desirable to England after repeated wars had diminished the Royal Navy’s available supplies

needed for ship masts (Labaree, 1979). According to the King’s Mark Resource Conservation

and Development Project, Inc. (n.d.), the colonies were home to the Eastern White Pine which

grew from 150 to 240 feet tall and was light in weight, resistant to rot, and reliably strong, which

made it an ideal ship mast. These trees were so crucial to the Crown that that their protection

was explicitly outlined in The Charter of Massachusetts Bay of 1691 (Dane, Prescott, & Story,

1814).

Meanwhile, merchant ships shuttled goods abroad and intercolonial trade was conducted

via the Indigenous people’s trails turned to roads and river ferries (Hart, 1927). With trade

established, regulations quickly followed so that standard guidelines could be followed that

would reinforce ethics and fairness in business dealings. Weights and measures were utilized for

price setting for specific quantities and guilds formed determining quality control standards and

prices (Hart, 1927). Informing all colonial economic decisions were Medieval economic

practices, English parliamentary laws and statutes, and biblical principles regarding usury (loans

with high interest rates, for example), credit, and debt (Valeri, 2010; Winthrop, 1997). Factors

causing them to reconsider free-market capitalism included external threats to the colonies

amidst slow economic growth (stagnation) and simultaneously occurring price level increases

(inflation) (Valeri, 2010). The external threats coupled with stagflation caused the Puritans to

reexamine the relationship between risk and yield and the nature of risk and price (Valeri, 2010).

As the colonies reckoned with their approach to economics, Foster (1962) indicates £400

was set aside by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 for the inception of the first institution of

higher education. Tuition was £5 per annum if paying in wheat or corn, while £4 was acceptable

if paying with money (Foster, 1962). For the fledgling college to provide education to learners,

construction was needed, and exploitation of any non-English person was an accepted means of

acquiring free labor (Beckert & Rockman, 2016; Gardner, 2018). Slavery was also used as

punishment for Scottish prisoners of war by shipping them to the English colonies to sell as

laborers for iron work and sawmills, or to enter indentured servitude (Gardner, 2018). Regarding

Indigenous people, many were punished by displacing them to the West Indies in exchange for

cotton, tobacco, and kidnapped African enslaved people (Labaree, 1979). The African slave

trade began in earnest in 1637 with slave ships making regular voyages so that colonists had an

adequate labor supply, thereby retaining and building wealth, to fulfill their vision of a city upon

a hill (Beckert & Rockman, 2016). Their exploitations were rationalized through the use of

biblical scripture, such as Leviticus 25:39-55, which gives a synopsis for the treatment of

foreigners and their potential productivity (Rosenthal, 1973). Also, justifying chattel slavery for

obtaining permanent unpaid labor was the Body of Liberties of 1641, which was a court order

based on the Magna Carta (Warren, 2016). One phrase explicitly addressed lawful captives

taken from just wars or strangers who willingly sell themselves or are sold by someone else

(Warren, 2016). It would be more than six decades before the first anti-slavery pamphlet would

be published bringing into light the immorality of an economic system based on the buying and

selling of people to perform forced labor lacking any remuneration (Adams, 1921; Beckert &

Rockman, 2016; Warren, 2016).

Political ideology. From 1630 to 1640, the population of the Massachusetts Bay Colony

swelled from 1,000 to 20,000 (Wallenfeldt, 2020). Due to the onset of the English Civil War in

1642, the wave of immigration not only slowed, but some colonists even returned to England to

fight for the Crown (Wallenfeldt, 2020).

In 1643, the Massachusetts Bay Colony informally partnered with the colonies of

Connecticut River (New Haven and Saybrook), and Plymouth. According to the Articles of

Confederation of the United Colonies of New England (1643), this confederation was

represented by delegates of each colony to ensure a unified defense against Indigenous people,

the French, and the Dutch by coordinating diplomatic and militaristic approaches. A secondary

benefit to this coalition was to settle disputes arising from trade, boundaries, and religion. This

alliance proved to be most necessary during King Philip’s War of the 1670s (Labaree, 1979).

For those remaining in the colony, there was a realization that England’s distraction with

wars could be beneficial as close oversight was marginally waning (Morison, 1935). The

Puritans’ theocratic government, divinely guided and restricted to Puritan church members only,

increased in power while the rights of those with dissenting beliefs decreased (Wallenfeldt,

2020). In effect, the Puritans were treating “others” in much the same way they themselves were

treated in England.

As a joint stock company whose directors, officers, and shareholders were comprised of

gentry and merchants, the charter to which the Puritans agreed gave governing authority to a

corporate board headquartered in England with ultimate oversight administered by the Crown

(Wallenfeldt, 2020; Winthrop, 1997). As such, the charter of the company itself would remain in

England. Despite King Charles I giving this commercial enterprise many freedoms, such as the

ability to trade, colonize, own land, and determine local governance, the Puritans sought more

(Wallenfeldt, 2020; Winthrop, 1997). Consequently, Puritan leadership formed The Cambridge

Agreement and agreed to merge the entire Massachusetts Bay Company into the Massachusetts

Bay Colony for the purpose of becoming an English commonwealth in a multi-divisional form

move (Moe, 2002). To that end, once the charter was signed, the document surreptitiously

crossed the Atlantic and remained hidden from public view and scrutiny so that the structure of

the colony’s managing body and rights of shareholders could not be verified (Jones, 1900).

Meanwhile, Puritan leaders such as John Winthrop, set about shrewdly structuring the

governing body for the colony not fully based on the charter. For instance, in accordance with

the charter, all shareholders formed the General Court (Moe, 2002). From this group, officers

would be elected to make local laws (Moe, 2002). At the General Court’s first meeting, only

eight shareholders were present; and, together, all eight voted that they would become the first

Council of Assistants (Hart, 1927). Their first order of business was to elect a governor and

deputy governor from their small group – in direct contradiction to the terms of their charter

(Hart, 1927). Regardless of the number of shareholders increasing the number of the General

Court, the Council of Assistants continued to limit their number to the original eight and

maintained a tight control on governance in the colony (Hart, 1927). They went as far as voting

that all shareholders of the General Court must be church members, which was accomplished

through a lengthy interview process where religious views and experiences were examined

(Main, 2001). This ensured that only those with like-minded beliefs to the Council of Assistants

would be given the right to vote as shareholders.

As the colony grew, two deputies represented each town. Suspicious as to the contents of

the charter and knowing that it had remained hidden by the Council of Assistants, the deputies

advocated to review the document (Hart, 1927). The Council of Assistants relented, and it was

revealed therein that the General Court had the authority to make all laws; and, more

importantly, all shareholders served on the General Court (Hart, 1927; Moe, 2002). John

Winthrop, who was the colony’s first governor, interjected into the debate that there were now

too many shareholders to sit on the General Court (Hart, 1927). Hence, the deputies and the

Council of Assistants negotiated new terms that all of the deputies would act as shareholders’

representatives and preside on the General Court (Hart, 1927). The term “shareholders” fell out

of favor for the use of “freemen” instead, which was representative of all free, White, Puritan,

land-owning men in the colony who were given the right to vote. Further, it was decided that the

Council of Assistants and deputies would perform their functions independent of one another;

however, for legislation to pass, both groups must find agreement (Hart, 1927). Finally, all

judicial appeals would be decided by a joint session (Hart, 1927). A bicameral legislature was

born and so, too, was the belief that the company’s charter had the political heft of a colony’s

constitution (Wallenfeldt, 2020). This maneuvering left the impression that this company-

turned-commonwealth had a mere dotted line matrix relationship to the corporate board in

England, and now reported directly to the Crown.

Jockeying for political power was taking shape and slowly forming the bedrock of a new

nation with new opportunities. Now that both the historical basis for intellectual property

ownership and the sociocultural factors of those who founded the nation’s early colleges that

produced intellectual property are understood, a transition to the underpinning theories of

intellectual property is necessary.

Theoretical Framework

Bringing philosophical assumptions together, providing a guiding approach to the

research process, and informing this dissertation is a theoretical framework (Creswell & Poth,

2018). Without theory-based research, Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) assert that studies will likely

“contribute nothing to the slow accumulation of knowledge needed for the advancement of the

science of education” (p. 45). The theoretical basis for this study is significant as it is used to

explain or justify ownership of intellectual property. Principles from two predominant theories,

and their associated sub-categories, underpin this research. These include ethical theories based

on Kant (1788), Bentham (1842), Mill (1863), Locke (1689), Hegel (1821), and Rawls (1971)

and social theories devised by Bandura (1977) and Unger (1976).

Ethical theory. According to Klein (2011), Ethical Theory provides a theoretical

justification for innovators to retain ownership control of their intellectual property due to

inherent moral rights. Tomkowicz (2012) posits that an utilitarianistic theory, a sub-category of

ethical theory, provides a viable basis for the protection of intellectual property ownership rights

of a creation. Meanwhile, Breakey (2012) explores freedom through a rights-based prism to

determine what kinds of limitations creators have. He focuses on happiness, or utility, as the

measurement and motivation for moral and ethical behavior (Breakey, 2012). Lastly, Merges

(2011) advances the Theory of Justice further.

Categorical imperative. Ethical Theory, as developed by Immanuel Kant (1788), is

predicated upon a strong sense of duty which must outweigh any emotional propensity for not

behaving ethically and morally. For Kant’s (1788) Categorical Imperative, a central guiding

question must be asked: Does one’s action respect the goals of human beings rather than using

them for one’s own purposes? If this question is answered in the negative, then the action simply

must not be pursued. Here, the consequence of the action is irrelevant. The entire matter rests

on acts motivated by good will and duty fulfillment. Duty, in this context, is the responsibility to

apply human reasoning to determine the rational and ethical conduct. Klein (2011) describes

human reasoning as the “search for universal laws that are central to human morality, the heart of

the demand for impartiality and justice” (p. 100). Morals are specifically defined utilizing an

intensity scale that measures the degree that one applies his or her ethical principles (Klein,

2011). Acts are the behaviors through which one demonstrates morals and ethics (Klein, 2011).

Rules are defined as the boundaries within which one must operate (Klein, 2011). For higher

education, these rules are intellectual property laws and associated university policies (Klein,

2011). Together, these comprise cultural values that reflect the traditions and principles of a

community – in this case, within the community of an institution of higher learning (Klein,

2011). Cohen (2016), though, notes that if values drive ethical behavior within the confines of

morality in education, Kant (1788) believes it must be done so entirely absent of feelings.

Conversely, Jeremey Bentham (1842) believes feelings, especially the feeling of happiness, has a

place in ethics.

Utilitarianism. Three significant, utilitarianistic theories within Ethical Theory provide a

premise for protecting ownership rights of a creation. They are (a) Bentham’s (1842) Principle

of Utility, (b) Locke’s (1689) Labor Theory of Property and (c) Hegel’s (1821) Hegelianism.

Utilitarianism is used to suggest property rights are absolutes toward achieving human happiness

or satisfaction (Tomkowicz, 2012). According to Tomkowicz (2012), the legal system can offer

this kind of satisfaction.

The principle of utility. Bentham (1842) adds the construct of happiness to Kant’s (1788)

constructs of morals, ethics, and rules in his alternate Ethical Theory entitled, The Principle of

Utility. Unlike in Kant’s (1788) Categorical Imperative, Bentham (1842) eliminates the idea of

good will motivating specific acts. In its stead, how individuals ultimately act is what matters.

This utilitarianistic view advances human nature’s tendency to choose pleasure over pain as a

root cause towards motivating ethical behavior (Bentham, 1842). According to Bentham (1842),

humans engage in acts that induce happiness. Bentham (1842) finds value from the simple state

of being happy; whereas Kant (1788) finds happiness valuable only when applied to moral acts

that are chosen freely. These attitudes by both ethicists translate into opposing views of rights.

Kant (1788) asserts that rights are a demonstration of the value instilled in all individuals.

Whereas Bentham (1842) believes that natural rights are nonsensical and legal rights are

imaginary constructs that could only have value if they lead to one’s happiness. James Mill

(1863) also utilizes the construct of happiness. Mill’s (1863) vision of a Utilitarian Theory

within Ethical Theory is fixated on the principle of utility, or the principle of greatest happiness.

This happiness principle serves as the standard bearer for morality and is the goal for an ethical

life (Mill, 1863).

Labor theory of property. Bentham (1842) grounds his Ethical Theory in John Locke’s

(1689) empiricism – the theory that all knowledge emanates from an individual’s sense

experiences. Merges (2011) leans on empiricism to explain the natural rights of intellectual

property through the lens of Locke’s (1689) Labor Theory of Property. The premise behind

these rights is that they are inherently present in all individuals (Locke, 1689). Because

intellectual property requires an individual’s intellectual or physical effort, the created product

innately belongs to its creator (Merges, 2011). This labor justification recognizes the labor put

toward the property’s creation. Simply put, had the labor not been devoted, the property would

not exist (Locke, 1689).

Hegelianism. Hegel’s (1821) eponymous Hegelianism theory is demonstrated by a

property’s tangible existence in two ways. These are (a) property that is connected to only one

person and cannot be replaced and (b) property that is merely instrumental and can be replaced

without causing pain to the creator (Hegel, 1821). Tomkowicz (2012) uses these to focus on the

philosophical justification of intellectual property rights. Constructs include natural rights, labor

justification, creations, and philosophy of right (Tomkowicz, 2012). Natural rights are those

embodying absolutes that have been granted to all by God (Tomkowicz, 2012). Labor

justification determines that the one who labors toward the intellectual property should be given

property rights so that the creation is protected (Tomkowicz, 2012). Creations are any tangible

or intangible entity that has been physically or intellectually developed (Tomkowicz, 2012).

According to Hegel (1821), the philosophy of right is the right to property which is the first

expression of freedom. The Hegel theory produces overlaps in Tomkowicz’s (2012) work by

demonstrating the tension resulting from the commercialization of intellectual property. The

overlaps in Tomkowicz’s (2012) work demonstrate the tension resulting from the

commercialization of intellectual property. Intangible constraints, such as law, are placed on

tangible creations that have potential intellectual or commercial value (Tomkowicz, 2012).

Theory of justice. Building on the work of Kant (1788) and opposing Mill’s (1863)

Utilitarianism and Locke’s broader Theory of Natural Rights, John Rawls (1971) Theory of

Justice demonstrates an updated Kantian-type theory that promotes fairness among society by

guaranteeing equal rights so that one can achieve a fulfilling life. The Theory of Justice is

centered on integrating the idea of freedom with that of equality in an attempt to apply a

framework on a contemporary society (Rawls, 1971). Rawls (1971) theory advances two ways

to maintain fairness within society. They are (a) to establish equal basic rights and freedoms for

all and (b) to apply a principle of economic justice that includes equal opportunity and collective

economic benefit for all groups (Rawls, 1971). Rawls’ (1971) justice as fairness concept is

developed further by Merges (2011). Merges (2011) leans on Rawls’ (1971) theory and

combines it with the theories of Kant (1788) and Locke (1689) to establish one unifying theory

pertaining to intellectual property ownership. Merges’ (2011) assertion balances limits on

appropriation which is paramount to justly rewarding ownership rights for creative works.

Social theory. The second significant theoretical category represents social phenomena.

Social Identity Theory and Science Theory provide paradigms to study and interpret intellectual

property ownership behaviors.

Social identity theory. Social Identity Theory as put forth by Albert Bandura (1977)

demonstrates social learning theory as individuals learning from one another through

observation, imitation, and modeling behaviors. This modeling could represent positive or

negative behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions (Bandura, 1977). Klein (2011) delineates

social identity as the way in which individuals view themselves inform their perceptions of the

world around them. Collectively, these perceptions engender behavior and form a conditioned

environment (Bandura, 1991; Klein, 2011). Therefore, one’s social identity could influence the

perceived cultural or economic value of one’s intellectual property, thereby driving its demand

for ownership. Nadelson (2007) refers to Bandura’s (1977) socially determined self-regulation

as social projection. Social projection focuses on seeing people and places through the lens of

experience, rather than through an objective point of view (Klein, 2011).

Social science theory. The legal theorist, Roberto Unger (1976) leans on Hegel’s (1821)

Hegelianism and the rule of law to form the basis of his Critical Social Theory. The rule of law

equally subjects all societal members under publicly known constraints intended to guide

individual and institutional behaviors (Black, 2016). Unger (1976) believes that because the

problems outlined by previous social theorists remain unsolved, “social theory must destroy

itself” for its ultimate intent to be fulfilled (p. 8). Unger (1976) explores a modern social

paradox. Individuals enjoy the benefits of living in a society where their freedoms can be

expressed but find the social structures in place to be oppressive, thereby ultimately suppressing

their pursuit for freedom (Collins, 1987). This paradoxical insight can be applied to higher

education and the academic freedoms expected by stakeholders who are also intellectual property

creators. To resolve issues such as this, Ligertwood (2018) asserts that legal thought needs to

extend past jurisprudence and interact with “the existing and adjacent possible institutional and

ideological structures of society” (p. 237).

Problem Statement

Because intellectual property reflects what a culture achieves, values, and advances, a

system to award rightful ownership of it is critical. In the United States, a substantial amount of

intellectual property is born within the walls of the university due to its propensity towards

research and service. Understanding, from the outset, who owns this property is imperative in

knowing who can access it, direct its influence, and profit from it. For American universities,

intellectual property ownership disputes have long interacted with legislation and have often

been resolved through litigation. The result, of which, is an ongoing tension between the idea of

furthering public goods (that which can be attained from higher education for the benefit of the

public) and private rights (those rights of the owner, whether as an individual or an entity, to

restrict or release intellectual property) (Labaree, 1997; Rooksby, 2016).

The recent commercialization of knowledge within higher education can be summarily

traced back to the decadence of the 1980s – a time when deregulation and policies supporting

free-market capitalism converged and cleared the way for an increase in commercial activity

across the board from public and private business sectors to publicly and privately funded

universities (Rooksby, 2016). Therefore, because of neoliberal economics, interest increased in

higher education among students, thereby increasing competition and spending among

institutions (Rooksby, 2016). Simultaneously, court opinions and legislation further abated

regulations surrounding intellectual property ownership, which increased the income-generating

potential of universities holding patents and copyrights (Rooksby, 2016). However, the

assumption that university interests in intellectual property ownership did not begin until

restrictions were eased in the 1980s falls short of the historical record. From historical evidence,

it is apparent that intellectual property ownership rights had long been brewing beneath the

surface as scientific discoveries and artistic achievements were emerging from institutions.

Currently, research has been limited to only facets of intellectual property and higher

education. Several studies focus on a single “vertical axis” of intellectual property. Examples

include research on its historical rise; its justification; its economic structure; or its place in

property law (Brown, 1999; Bugbee, 1967; Cortada, 1998; Khong, 2006; Ladas, 1975; Landes &

Posner, 2003; Merges, 2011; Patry, 1994; Steiner, 1905; White, 1967). Husovec (2016) even

outlines a compelling historical account of intellectual property ownership rights pertaining

specifically to The Netherlands while Secundo, Lombardi, and Dumay (2018) research the

capitalization of intellectual property from an Australian perspective. Similarly, there are studies

that focus on a single “horizontal axis” of higher education. Instances include research on its

historical evolution; student or faculty plagiarism; or social, political, and economic challenges

(Bastedo, Altbach, & Gumport, 2016; Bloch, 2012; Bracha, 2019; Gutek, 1995, 2011; Klein,

2011; Lucas, 2006; Nadelson, 2007).

The few studies that explore the intersecting axes of intellectual property and higher

education are limited to the current modern monetization and management of intellectual

property; intellectual property policies developed in higher education; or are intellectual property

perceptions among students, faculty, human resources staff, and student affairs staff (Hentschke,

2017; Knight & Lugg, 2017; Rooksby, 2016; Saunders & Lozano, 2018). Therefore, the

problem that necessitates this study is that current research lacks a synthesized analysis based on

historical evidence as to what attributed to the rise of university intellectual property

commercialization.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this historical study is to describe how university intellectual property

ownership interests began and how these contributed to, and interacted with, case law and

legislation ultimately giving rise to the commercialization of collegiate-driven knowledge at the

colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale. At this stage in the research, the monetization of

intellectual property in higher education will be generally defined as commercialization.

Guiding this study are ethical theories based on Kant (1788), Bentham (1842), Mill (1863),

Locke (1689), Hegel (1821), and Rawls (1971) and social theories devised by Bandura (1977)

and Unger (1976) as they explain and justify the relationship between ownership and intellectual

property.

Significance of the Study

The ensuing study is significant in three primary ways. First, empirically, this study

begins to fill in a gap in the literature where one currently exists (Hentschke, 2017; Knight &

Lugg, 2017; Rooksby, 2016; Saunders & Lozano, 2018). Adding a qualitative historical analysis

to the literature that examines the historical record to determine how university intellectual

property ownership interests began and how these contributed to, and interacted with, case law

and legislation ultimately giving rise to the commercialization of collegiate-driven knowledge at

the colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale. This contribution to the literature will likely yield

deep, contextual knowledge of this phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Second, there are potential theoretical implications associated with this historical study.

While Unger’s (1976) Critical Social Theory provides the theoretical structure for this historical

analysis by serving as the guiding theory, the works of Kant’s (1788) and Bentham’s (1842)

Ethical Theory, as well as, Bandura’s (1977) Social Identity Theory lay the theoretical

foundation. These theories may acquire deeper understanding when applied to this historical

study by giving the study additional theoretical significance.

Third, there is a practical significance of the historical study. Unlike some areas of

higher education, intellectual property issues affect every stakeholder from federal and state

government to the board of trustees, administration, faculty, staff, students, parents, alumni, and

community members at every U.S. institution of higher education (Rodriguez, Greer, &

Shipman, 2014; Rooksby, 2016). Not understanding how institutional intellectual property

practices have evolved over time leaves stakeholders inadequately prepared to engage in

projected perspective when anticipating intellectual property’s growth and impact on the future

of higher education. This vulnerability could result in substantial institutional and personal

financial loss in the forms of revenue royalties and litigation expenses which can significantly

burden annual budgets (Hentschke, 2017; Secundo et al., 2018). These disputes could also have

a lasting influence on future court opinions, which will further weigh public good and private

rights (Rooksby, 2016). Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the public good may be

irrevocably compromised as the intellectual property benefit is either gained or lost (Rooksby,

2016).

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study. They are derived from the problem

and purpose statements. Following the recommendation of Creswell and Poth (2018), the central

question is a reduction of the entire study, meaning that the research has been reduced to the

central core of its idea. The guiding sub-questions surround Creswell and Creswell’s (2018)

“description of the case and the themes that emerge from studying it” (p. 134).

Central Research Question

The central research question that guided this historical study was: What produced

intellectual property rights interests and how did these interact with, and contribute to, legislation

and case law moving Harvard and Yale from former colonial colleges to modern commercialized

enterprises? Central to this research is the historical record of the founding of Harvard and Yale,

the adjudicated intellectual property disputes involving both institutions since their inception,

and the relevant legislation providing a parameter in which each college must operate. In

conjunction with these, increased interest in intellectual property ownership rights were

examined through the historical account of sociocultural, political, religious, and legal elements

(Berman, 1983; Buckley, 2017; Morison, 1935; Wallenfeldt, 2020).

This central research question focused on a comprehensive phenomenon. While other

factors emerged that influenced this phenomenon, Creswell and Poth (2018) recommend

beginning a study with a single focus and studying it deeply. The guiding sub-questions

accomplished that by giving context to this central question.

Sub-question one. What motivated intellectual property ownership rights interests at

Harvard and Yale? To understand the evolution of intellectual property ownership thought at

two early American colleges, one must start at that beginning to follow the rise in interest of

claiming ownership over individual or institutional creative works. Answering this question will

also reveal at what point along the phenomenon’s timeline the institutions realized the private

benefits of control (Bracha, 2019). In this case, private benefits of control are those benefits

representing the potential of economic gain acquired from exerting influence over the owning

and directing of property beyond the physical realm and into the intellectual (Foster, 1962;

Rooksby, 2016).

Sub-question two. In what ways did these interests interact with legislation? Two

timelines have mirroring evolutions due to their intrinsic interdependency upon one another.

This question probed the growth and interplay of the evolutions of intellectual property

ownership rights and legislation (Fisher, 1999). Legislation is a descriptive for the collection of

statutory laws enacted by Congress in the form of Acts for the purpose of regulating,

deregulating, authorizing, providing, restricting, granting, or sanctioning various items

(Burnham, 2016). Regarding intellectual property ownership rights, legislation has served to

limit the time and scope of rights (Rooksby, 2016).

Sub-question three. How did these interests contribute to case law? Law based on

judicial decisions that have become common law either through binding precedent or persuasive

authority was examined to understand in what ways the adjudicated intellectual property disputes

of Harvard and Yale have affected case law as it pertains to (a) higher education or (b)

corporations who partner with higher education institutions for specific intellectual property

development (Friedman, 2019). Legal cases spanning the colonial period to modernity were

used to better understand the phenomenon.

Sub-question four. To what extent did these interests incentivize Harvard and Yale?

From a contemporary perspective, intellectual property ownership disputes have risen due to

important, but basic, factors involving potential revenue stream and control (Rooksby, 2016).

Davies (2015) concurs that universities are increasingly interested in owning knowledge that has

market value; however, involving academia in market-driven demands causes tension among

university stakeholders. This question seeks to ascertain the monetization motivations on the

institutions.

Sub-question five. How did these interests alter both colleges’ original missions of

educating clergy? At the inception of the nation’s first college in 1636, Harvard’s mission

statement was a declaration to instill biblical principles into all students for the purpose of

creating a solid foundation for their lives (Morison, 1935). However, only 74 years into living

this mission, Harvard named their first secular president in a move to redirect the mission of the

institution (Morison, 1935). As of 2020, Harvard’s focus is on the academic and leadership

preparation of citizenry for the benefit of society (The Mission of Harvard College, 2020).

Yale’s mission evolution is similar (Buckley, 2017). Therefore, to understand to what extent a

correlation exists between intellectual property interests and mission redirections as motivations

changed, the historical evidence was scrutinized to answer this question.

Methods

Viewing history as a metaphoric ongoing conversation between people who continuously

enter and leave a parlor, Burke (1974) philosophized that the point one enters the discussion is

temporal to the overall experience. Burke (1974) writes:

You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged

in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly

what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got

there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone

before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the

argument; then you put in your oar. (p. 110)

This historical study is the insertion of an oar into the waters of a larger and ongoing

intellectual property conversation through the exploration of a central research question.

However, joining the discussion through questioning is not sufficient. True participation is

found in the quality of the contribution of the work produced. As Burke (1974) continues:

Someone answers you; you answer her; another comes to your defense; another aligns

herself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent,

depending upon the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is

interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the

discussion still vigorously in progress. (pp. 110-111)

Therefore, to have a legitimate impact on the historical conversation, one must rely on

quality data sources to answer questions. Similar to Burke’s (1974) framing history as an

unending parlor discussion, Carr (1961) sees history as a never-ending dialogue between past

and present. It is upon Carr’s definition that Gall et al. (2007) define historical research as the

“process of systematically searching for data to answer questions about a phenomenon from the

past to gain a better understanding of the foundation of present institutions, practices, trends,

beliefs, and issues in education” (p. 529). Likewise, Tuchman (2004) describes historical

research methods as those involving “the use of primary historical data to answer a question” (p.

462).

Historical Method Research Design

Williams (2007) explains that the question posed forms the central research question of

the historical research method and functions to explain the (a) intellectual origins of a particular

idea, (b) causation of an event, (c) consequences of an event, (d) cultural context of an event, (e)

accountability for an act, (f) social history of an event, and (g) broad trends in society during an

event. Depending upon the question, data may involve demographic records, newspaper articles,

letters, diaries, architectural drawings, or government records (Tuchman, 2004). Beyond

primary and secondary sources, Williams (2007) also includes documents, maps, artifacts,

images, cliometrics, and genetic evidence as historical data. Paramount to the process of

choosing which data to utilize is the consideration of (a) which data are appropriate to the

question asked, (b) how each was originally collected, (c) what meanings were originally

attached to the data at the time of collection, and (d) what meanings can be extrapolated from

these data now (Tuchman, 2004). It is through this gathering of evidentiary support that one can

construct a historical analysis (Williams, 2007).

Crucial to constructing and conducting a historical analysis in the social sciences is the

use of a theoretical framework. Theory navigates the researcher toward answers to their

questions (Tuchman, 2004). For a historical study, theory and context are interdependent.

Context spurs the identification of theoretically pertinent data while theory determines the

understanding of relevant contexts (Tuchman, 2004). The product, of which, is an interpretative

framework of constructed reality for the benefit of historical education (Gall et al., 2007). These

historical education benefits in higher education may include (a) a subject in the curriculum, (b)

a foundation for developing new knowledge and policies, (c) an evaluation program, (d) a

variable affecting validity of further research, or (e) a tool used for future planning (Gall et al.,

2007).

Lastly, credited with the research design of historical methods is Thucydides (460-400

BCE) of Athens, Greece (Cochrane, 1929). Thucydides is known as the father of scientific

history as he is thought to be the first to apply strict standards towards evidentiary support and

cause and effect analyses. His impartiality is noted because his Athenian counterparts gave their

deities credit for life’s interventions.

Approach

The nature of this analysis aligned with qualitative inquiry for two primary reasons.

First, the study focused on the narrow and deep issue of what produced intellectual property

rights interests and how these interacted with and contributed to legislation and case law moving

Harvard and Yale from former colonial colleges to commercialized enterprises. Second, the data

utilized was described textually, rather than numerically, with a focus on the historical record for

contextual analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Had the focus been broad and shallow, or leaned

into an abundance of historical statistical data, a quantitative approach would have been

employed (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Williams, 2007). Additionally, the study was inductive

because it involved recognizing meaningful themes as they emerged within broad patterns

(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Working inductively requires the researcher to understand the

context implicitly (Tuchman, 2004). Unlike most other qualitative studies and all quantitative

studies, historical research studies are presented in the format of a story with a chronology of

events, important settings, involved historical characters, and “the larger forces in society that

influenced the actions and thoughts” of each, with the researcher’s interpretations interwoven

throughout (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2010, p. 442).

Definitions

The following are the terms that were pertinent to this study.

1. Adjudicate – To adjudicate is to decide a dispute judicially (Burnham, 2016).

2. Copyright – The right to copy an original work, such as literature, music, sound

recordings, drama, choreography, art, picture, graphic, photograph, sculpture,

architecture, video recordings, motion pictures, and other tangible mediums defines

distribute, adapt, or display the copyrighted work (Black, 2016). For works created after

January 1, 1978, copyright ownership lasts for the duration of the owner’s life plus 70

years after the owner’s death.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) – World Intellectual Property Organization (n.d.) defines

intellectual property as creations of the mind. These products can refer to art, literary

works, symbols, designs, images, and inventions that can be used for commercialization

purposes (WIPO, n.d.). These properties can assume legal protections in the forms of

copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets (Burnham, 2016). Protections, such as

these, are designed to give ownership recognition and be a catalyst for financial award by

creating an environment where further innovation can flourish (Rooksby, 2016). This

helps to establish a balanced approach that considers the interests of both the

commonweal and the innovator.

4. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) – Collectively, intellectual property rights are those

rights associated with legal protections for intellectual property. Copyright law originates

as a Constitutional protection that authorizes Congress to enact statutes “designed to

promote progress by protecting literary and artistic expression, such as computer

programs, books, poetry, song, dance, dramatic works, movies, sculptures, and paintings”

(Alexander & Alexander, 2017, p. 719). Qualified works are original and give the creator

ownership rights throughout her life plus 70 additional years, or for 95 years following

publication, or for 120 years after the work’s creation - whichever comes first (Alexander

& Alexander, 2017). Patents are protected by federal statute stemming from the U.S.

Constitution and provides exclusive rights to “stimulate discovery of new processes,

machines, compositions of natural matter and new technologies” (Alexander &

Alexander, 2017, p. 719). Trademarks are protected by federal statute through the

Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, The Lanhan Act, and protects words,

symbols, and “other identifying features that indicate the source and nature of goods

services” including logos, slogans, colors, and pictures (Alexander & Alexander, 2017;

Rooksby, 2016). Trademarks have no expiration. Unlike copyrights, patents, and

trademarks, trade secrets were not federally protected until recently. Prior to 2016, they

were covered by state statutes designed to prevent the theft and appropriation of trade

secrets (Alexander & Alexander, 2017).

5. Litigate – To litigate is to engage in a legal judicial process (Burnham, 2016).

6. Patent – A patent gives the owner the right to have authority over inventions that are

novel, innovative, beneficial, and nonobvious (Black, 2016). The patent owner may

exclude all others from using, making, selling, marketing, replicating, or importing the

invention for 20 years after the patent filing date (Black, 2016).

7. Patent Pools – Patent pools are an agreement between two or more patent owners to

license one or more patents with one another or with a third party (Delcamp, 2015).

These pools typically stem from complex technology where there is a dependence on

complementary patents so that an emerging technology can function properly (Delcamp,

2015).

8. Trademark – A trademark is a logo, symbol, word, or phrase to demonstrate the source of

goods or services (Black, 2016). The purpose of the trademark is to distinguish the

owner from other sellers or manufacturers (Black, 2016).

9. Trade Secret – A trade secret is a confidential formula, information, pattern, process,

technique, or device that gives the owner an advantage over the competition (Black,

2016). The value in a trade secret lies with its perceived economic potential that due to it

not being known by others. Reasonable efforts to maintain the secret is expected (Black,

2016).

10. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – This global organization is a self-

funding agency of the United Nations consisting of 192 countries. Their mission is to

contribute to the development of an international intellectual property system that fosters

innovation thereby benefitting all (WIPO, n.d.).

Summary

In Chapter One, several sections are presented to introduce the reader to this study. First,

a background of intellectual property ownership is established. These included the historical

basis, the sociocultural context, and the theoretical framework of the study. These are followed

by the problem that necessitates this purposeful and significant study. To recapitulate, because

intellectual property reflects the innovative achievements, values, and advances of a society, and

because it affects all higher education stakeholders, it must be protected and understood. Despite

a wealth of literature on intellectual property, in general, few studies provide an in-depth analysis

of how intellectual property interacts with higher education. Of these, none follows the

evolution of intellectual property ownership at America’s universities. Hence, the problem that

necessitated this study is that current research lacks a synthesized analysis based on historical

evidence as to what attributed to the rise of university intellectual property commercialization.

This problem motivated the purpose of this historical study, which was to describe how

university intellectual property ownership interests began and how these contributed to, and

interacted with, case law and legislation ultimately giving rise to the commercialization of

collegiate-driven knowledge at the colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale. Not only does

understanding the origins of intellectual property in higher education begin to fill a gap in the

existing literature, but it also offers both theoretical and practical significance. These are

outlined in the significance of the study, which is then followed by the central research question.

Closing Chapter One are an explanation of historical research methods and the definitions of

pertinent terms. In Chapter Two, the transfer of learning is examined, and the origin story

begins.

CHAPTER TWO: EVOLUTION OF “MINE”: 1630-1800

Overview

Chapter Two looks at the origin and necessitation of translatio studii, as it pertains to the

founding of the universities of Harvard and Yale. Although 65-years separate the inception of

each college in neighboring regions, they have a shared history regarding their Puritanical

purpose and founding families (Morison, 1936). However, an important distinction should be

made. Despite the colonists agreeing to the legal terms of the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter

of 1629, the Puritanical men seemed taken aback that England’s long arm could reach across the

Atlantic (Morison, 1935). Their former resentment of the authority towards their homeland grew

to resistance in their new land when they committed their first rebellious act – the illegal

founding of Harvard College (Baker, 2007). They justified the act by citing the laws of Moses

over the laws of humans. Although England had greater issues at the time that drew its attention

away from the behavior of the colonists, King Charles II would eventually rescind their charter

in 1684 by writ of scire facias putting the welfare of 20,000 colonists in flux (Baker, 2007). By

the time Yale was (legally) founded in 1701, Harvard was already changing and amassing power

through control of information as it came into ownership of the New World’s first two printing

presses (The Harvard Crimson, 1928). Clearly, the seminaries’ foundational histories are

necessary for establishing the mindset and motivations of the founders as these would set a series

of decisions in motion that would impact the schools. Hence, the universities’ original missions,

standards, and ideological views within the confines of English Common Law will be outlined as

these provide an evolutionary framework on which to attach pertinent legal disputes during this

time. Lastly, the early definitions of patent and copyright will be explained before concluding

this historical period using early intellectual property cases and statutes. The chapter will end

with a summary.

The Origin and Necessitation of Translatio Studii

Gutek (1995) describes education as the “process that attempts to ensure the cultural

continuation of a group, race, or nation” (p. 10). What constitutes the knowledge needed for

cultural continuation has long evolved within higher education (Gutek, 2011). During the

medieval era, this evolution of worthy knowledge to be shared generationally was influenced by

religion (Gutek, 2011). Initially, it was the Catholic Church who kept a watchful eye over what

knowledge was essential, and perhaps more importantly, which was acceptable. However, with

the protests stemming from those seeking reformation of religious practices and beliefs, the

emerging Protestant Church would begin to wrangle educational influences away from

sacerdotal dictations (Gutek, 2011). These changes would ultimately make way for the

emergence of the enlightenment era – impacting the evolution of education further. Despite

shifts in worldviews, cultural values, and modes of inquiry, one constant remained – translatio

studii.

The Medieval Era

Translatio studii, Latin for “the transfer of knowledge,” can be traced to Daniel 2:39-40

in the Bible (Newsom & Breed, 2014). Here, the narrator acquaints the reader with the

fulfillment of the first four kingdoms of Daniel’s prophecy. The fifth kingdom, which has yet to

come, will be under the rule of the returned Messiah. This scripture serves as a reminder that

eternal values are to be the motivator of thoughts and actions (Collins, Flint, & Vanepps, 2002).

Expressly, these values comprise the knowledge that deserves to be cherished, simply because it

is everlasting, rather than temporal (Collins et al., 2002). Spanning nearly 1,000 years during the

medieval era and informing the knowledge base was the Catholic Church. This was primarily

achieved through establishing Cathedral church schools, a theocentric worldview, and a

hierarchal perception of society and church (Gutek, 1995). For an educational-impact

perspective then, analysis of the medieval era can be approached from institutional,

psychological, and behavioral standpoints (Gutek, 1995). As an institution, Gutek (1995)

explains that although the Catholic Church’s policies had “strong social, economic, and political

implications,” it was primarily a spiritual force that sought to “integrate medieval life, beliefs,

and values” through the use of scripture, beliefs, developed doctrines, liturgy, and sacraments

practiced (p. 74). These were foundational for educating priests and lay people alike (Gutek,

1995).

Central to accomplishing this was translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin

and the New Testament from Greek into Latin. This accommodation had a psychological effect,

as well. It gave literate Europeans the opportunity to read the Bible first-hand through a

common language - Latin. This had unintended psychological consequences: it personalized the

experience and gave the reader a measure of independence from the church (Gutek, 1995).

Behavioral changes would follow. With so many learning Latin in grammar schools, an

opportunity emerged for peoples of different countries to come together.

Communication in Latin became commonplace which opened the gates to new trade and

economic opportunities (Gutek, 1995). Eventually, this behavior spurred three educational

agencies to develop. They were all governed by the church and focused on: (a) literary

education, (b) chivalric training, and (c) vocational training (Gutek, 1995). On whichever path

one was placed, translatio studii ensued.

Transferring this meaningful knowledge during the medieval era was the resolve of many

key thinkers – hallmarking many of their philosophical ideas. Two of these educational

contributors during this time were Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin (Gutek, 2011). Though

three centuries separated each, the two shared an appreciation for the importance of ensuring

Christianity was at the forefront of formal education. This was because both men saw humans as

having value because they are created by God and have been created in His image. Ultimately

though, each had their own biblical exegesis. This could be attributed to the part of the medieval

era in which they lived. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian Catholic priest in the

hierarchical Dominican order who sought to harmonize the classical teachings of Aristotle with

biblical scripture (Gutek, 2011). These developed into a form of theistic realism and formed the

basis of his philosophy. Concentrated attention was placed on language so that the Church’s

body of knowledge was communicated explicitly. Of primary importance was the demonstration

of learnt principles in liberal arts and sciences that could support the pursuit of higher education

studies in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and theology (Gutek, 1995). The mission of Aquinas

would be fulfilled through the eventual Catholic schools in America.

Conversely, John Calvin (1509-1564) was part of the Protestant Reformation movement

that caused a decline in the influence of the Catholic Church. For the French reformer

representing the renaissance period of the medieval era, the Bible was a “self-sufficient author in

and of itself” (Gutek, 1995, p. 144). This radical approach to religion in the medieval era made

literacy critical to salvation. As hierarchical structures began wavering and more former

Catholics became interested in independence from the church, Calvin relied on literate laymen to

be church trustees tasked with their congregation’s collective conscience (Gutek, 2011). Calvin

also advocated for the marriage of theology and economics through stewardship which increased

the probability of potential profit-making for the middle class (Gutek, 1995). Calvin’s

philosophy crossed the Atlantic and Calvinism became imbedded in the Puritanical ideals of the

Massachusetts Bay colonists (Gutek, 1995).

The Enlightenment Era

In Colonial America, Puritans brought with them the concept of traditional coursework

from the medieval universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Lucas, 2006). A priority among the

colonists was for translatio studii to continue. In so doing, the values stemming from the

medieval era would be propagated, preserved, and pushed into a new era. However, preservation

would become a challenge as the new era also ushered in social reform, which favored reason

over religion. Hence, eighteenth century educational philosophers toiled to create ways to

transfer knowledge through pedagogical reforms based on their enlightened ideas and shifts in

values.

By contrast though, the day-to-day educational experience of learners was still markedly

medieval (Gutek, 1995). Vernacular (elementary) teachers held tight to rote memorization

techniques and rigid discipline tactics (Gutek, 1995). Daily instruction consisted of basic

reading, writing, arithmetic, and religious instruction. The maintaining of order and the

conformity to doctrine were the two required teaching tenets of the time (Gutek, 2011).

Meanwhile, grammar (secondary) schools remained committed to the medieval teaching of

classical Latin, Greek, and theology as the epitome of the educated person (Gutek, 2011).

Vocational training did expand to include law and medicine. Beyond this, higher education

scholars regarded themselves as protectors of classical education (Lucas, 2006).

Notwithstanding the many philosophies emerging from the eighteenth century, interest in

implementing many of the philosophers’ enlightenment-driven educational ideas would have to

wait until the nineteenth century before meaningful acceptance would be realized (Gutek, 1995).

Demonstrating, once again, that translatio studii is culture’s constant companion.

Seeking Veritas: The Founding of Harvard

After finally arriving on the shores of Salem on June 12, 1630, the colonists only lived

there for a few weeks. Many of the colonists followed the land between the Charles River and

the Atlantic Ocean southward for 16 miles and established Charles Town (modern day

Charlestown) (Morison, 1935). However, because water was not plentiful, many in the group

moved once more. This time, it was only 1.5 miles farther, establishing Boston as their new

capital in 1632. With homes constructed, farms operational, and a meeting house built to serve

as both church and municipality, the colonists turned their attention toward education (Adams,

1921; Morison, 1935).

By 1635, Boston Latin School was offering classes for male youths at the home of its

first headmaster (Boston Latin School History, n.d.). In 1642, the first formal law was passed in

the colony. It was concerned with education and required that all colonial children learn to read

and write. Mather (1702) recognized translatio studii by describing education this way: “If ever

there be any Considerable Blow given to the Devil’s Kingdom, it must be, by Youth Excellently

Educated” (p. 181). As the girls completed their education at the aforementioned Dame Schools

and the boys graduated from Boston Latin School, it was time to consider higher education for

male teens. However, there was one critical glitch. The Puritans had expressly agreed, in their

charter, to not disobey English law, which included beginning any colleges without the consent

of the Crown (Baker, 2007).

Massachusetts Bay Colony Charters of 1629 and 1691

The original colony charter of 1629 was for a joint stock company, where stock is bought

by shareholders who can then claim a portion of company ownership (Barnes, 1923). Because

this group was a business entity that also needed approval as an English colony from King

Charles I, the charter represented both a government and a corporate organization

(Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter, 1629). For the Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter (1629),

not all shareholders chose to move to the new English colony. Some remained in England and

held the stock as a pure investment opportunity.

Whether staying or going, within the charter, conditions were detailed and agreed upon

by all shareholders (the “loving Subjects of Newe England” as written in Early Modern English

in the charter) at the time of their stock purchase (Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter, 1629).

Some conditions were simply alluded to, like the document of the charter remaining in England,

while other conditions were completely omitted (when compared to other English charters). For

example, unlike other corporate charters, England did not require this corporation (a) to be

headquartered in England, (b) to have its officers live in specific places, and (c) to hold their

meetings at specific places (Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter, 1629). This omission, whether

incidental or intentional, proved critical in the shaping of the colony’s perception of autonomy.

Because the colony was headquartered in Boston and had its own representative government, a

paradigm existed that lulled Puritans into believing they were more independent than they were

(Barnes, 1923). Compounding this, was the feeling that the colony and the colonists were

divinely ordained, which created a persistent tension between the colony and the Crown (Barnes,

1923; Mather, 1684).

It is with this worldview that Puritan leadership approached submitting to the conditions

of the charter. Some of these terms were quite explicit, such as (a) the geographical location of

the colony, (b) specific land use, (c) the sharing of resources mined (gold, silver, minerals), (d)

the paying of customs on exported products, (e) election requirements, (f) aligning colonial laws

with English laws, (g) using English currency, (h) trading only with England, and (i) adhering to

all English laws (Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter, 1629).

Regarding the final three of these terms listed, the Puritans rebelled. The colony

deliberately interfered with the royal prerogative of the Crown, meaning they did not recognize

the collection of laws that gave jurisdiction to the monarch (Baker, 2007). As new laws were

enacted in England, the colonists were expected to stay apprised of them since many were

derived from the colonists’ actions. Ignoring expectations, laws and the terms of their charter,

the loving subjects began three significant illegal operations in the New World. First, they ran an

illegal mint where English coins were melted down (king’s head and all) to create new colony

currency (Labaree, 1979; Massachusetts General Court, 1814).

Second, they traded with other countries despite (a) multiple warnings, b) the

implementation of the Navigation Acts of 1651 and 1660, and c) being threatened with a quo

warranto, which is a prerogative writ used to inquire into the authority one has to exercise a

specific right or claim. The action can be used by the state to revoke a corporate charter (Barnes,

1923; Black, 2016; Massachusetts General Court, 1814).

Third, the Puritans rejected several English laws with which they did not agree. Two of

which became evident in the first several years of life in the colony. They treated those believing

in other faith systems (i.e., the Indigenous population, Catholic adherents, fellow Protestants

such as the Quakers) in an inhumane manner because they were deemed committers of heresy -

despite English law forbidding religious intolerance (Massachusetts General Court, 1814). Even

the head of the Anglican church, King Charles I, was viewed in this light. His being married to a

Catholic only aggravated Puritan mistrust (Pestana, 1983). In a similar reaction to a second

English law, which regulated the establishment of institutions of higher learning, the Puritans

disobeyed once again (Baker, 2007). The result, of which, was the New World’s first college –

Harvard, established in 1636 (Baker, 2007). In England, colleges were simply buildings of

instruction (Kelley, 1974). Only two universities, Oxford and Cambridge, were legal degree-

granting institutions (Kelley, 1974). Harvard conferred its first (illegal) degrees in 1642 further

complicating an already precarious situation (Kelley, 1974).

Therefore, these three rebellious acts of forming an illegal mint, commencing trade with

other countries, and disobeying English law eventually caused the Massachusetts Bay Colony

Charter to be rescinded in 1684 (Morison, 2010). In the years between 1636 – 1684, King

Charles I was distracted with the English Civil War and the fighting of the armies of the English

and Scottish parliaments (Fraser, 1979; Kenyon, 1978). At the center of the upheaval was

Charles I’s defense of an absolute monarch’s divine rule. The war ended with Charles I found

guilty of high treason and decapitated in 1649 (Kenyon, 1978). In the years that followed, the

Commonwealth of England became a republic (Kenyon, 1978).

In 1660, a constitutional monarchy was instituted with the son of Charles I, King Charles

II. Over the next two decades, Charles II was preoccupied with the bubonic plague health

pandemic, the great fire of London, foiling a murder plot on his life, foreign policy agreements,

parliamentary conflicts, and the disappointment of not producing a legitimate heir (Fraser, 1979).

Therefore, the charter was not revoked until 1684, leaving more time for the Puritans’ feelings

towards independence to become embedded in their culture (Baker, 2007). During the two years

following the rescindment, the Puritans, whose numbers had swelled to 20,000, were left

vulnerable (Wallenfeldt, 2020).

By 1686, the younger, Catholic brother of Charles II, King James II inherited the throne

(Fraser, 1979). To answer the problem of the colonists in Massachusetts, King James II simply

combined the colonies and provinces of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, New Hampshire,

Maine, Rhode Island, Providence, New Jersey, and New York, giving them the name of

Dominion of New England and placing Dominion officers in their midst (Barnes, 1923). The

new grouping only lasted three years. Once the colonists heard of England’s Glorious

Revolution of 1688-1689, which overthrew King James II, the colonists overthrew the

Dominion’s officials placed in the colony (Barnes, 1923). Once the Catholic, James II, had been

replaced with his Protestant daughter, Mary II, and her Dutch husband, William III, a new

charter was penned in 1691 (Barnes, 1923). The Massachusetts Bay Colony was now a royal

colony, rather than a charter colony (Labaree, 1979). The Plymouth Colony and the Province of

Maine were absorbed into the colony; and, together, the three areas were now called The

Province of Massachusetts Bay (Labaree, 1979). The seeds of total ownership over colonial life,

religion, livelihood, and education had now taken root and were germinating.

Mission

In 1636 and with a motto claiming to seek veritas, Latin for “truth” adopted in 1643, the

clandestine college began in earnest towards translatio studii (Lucas, 2006; Morison, 1935). The

desire for an institution of higher learning was relayed in the first pamphlet distributed in

England that mentioned Harvard, New England’s First Fruits (1643):

After God has carried us safe to New England, and wee had builded our houses, provided

necessaries for our lively-hood, and settled the Civill Government: One of the next things

we longed for, and looked after was to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity;

dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall

lie in the Dust. And as wee were thinking and consulting how to effect this great Work;

it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard (a godly Gentleman and a Lover of

Learning, there living amongst us) to give the one halfe of his estate. (p. 22)

It is with this mindset that the seminary of Newtowne College was formed in the new

town of Cambridge in 1636. According to the Records of the Governor and Company of the

Massachusetts Bay in New England, Volume I (1853), the first document to mention Harvard in

the colony was in the form of a financial record with “£400 towards a schoale or colledge” (p.

183). Foster (1962) finds significance in this as Harvard has a history of being viewed as both an

educational and financial institution. Three years later, a major contribution was made. In 1639,

John Harvard, an alumnus of Cambridge, bequeathed his library of 400 books and £779 to the

new college (Morison, 1935). In gratitude, the administration of Newtowne College formally

changed the seminary’s name to Harvard College and devised a clearly messianic mission as

evident in Harvard’s Rules and Precepts:

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the maine

end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, and

therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and

learning and seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself to

prayer in secret to seek it of him. (DeMar, 1995, pp. 102-103)

For Harvard, the centering sentiment of truth was especially significant. It was thought

of as a divine truth. Eventually, the motto of Veritas was replaced in 1650 for In Christi

Gloriam, Latin for the Glory of Christ (Ireland, 2015). The change occurred in the same year

that the Harvard Corporation was established (Morison, 1935). This motto carried the college

through two centuries until the original motto of Veritas was rediscovered in 1836 while looking

through early college documents in preparation for the 200th anniversary of the school; and, by

1843, the motto had been extended to Veritas: Christo et Ecclesiae, Latin for Truth: For Christ in

the Church (Ireland, 2015). In time, Christo et Ecclesiae would be dropped from the seal,

leaving only Veritas on a medieval shield displaying three books (a common design for colleges

at the time, i.e. Oxford, Cambridge, and the Sorbonne (Ireland, 2015). For Harvard, the two

open books represented the old and new testaments, whereas the closed third book symbolized

the truth of the fulfillment of Christ’s second coming (Ireland, 2015).

Standards

For admission, a demonstration of fluency in both Greek and Latin was required. Once

admitted, the matriculated candidate (who was usually in his early teens) could expect a

curriculum consisting of medieval learning, biblical studies, and Renaissance-based arts and

literature. Combined, these culminated into a graduate who exemplifies the ideal gentleman, the

model clergyman, and respected scholar (Lucas, 2006). In the colony, ministers were not only

expected to minister to congregants and community, but they were also tasked with civic

leadership responsibilities (Foster, 1962).

Part of becoming a university-educated civic leader was to be an upholder of specific

standards, all of which were based on Puritanical interpretations of biblical truths. Even though

Harvard students were mere boys, these precepts extended beyond conduct and expectations to

areas such as appearance. For the Puritans, these standards even extended to their hair. In New

England’s First Fruits (1643), which helped shaped the standards of Harvard, the presence of a

long head of hair and the absence of facial hair were equally shameful and viewed as an

abomination, as interpreted from I Corinthians 11:14, 16 and Deuteronomy 22:5. Harvard

College Laws (1655) gives specific examples of similar rules and precepts, such as hair should

not be (a) long, (b) shaped into locks by crisping or curling, (c) worn with foretops (bangs), (d)

parted, and/or (e) powdered. Additionally, students were not to leave their rooms without their

coats, gowns, or cloaks. Fancy or fashionable attire was strictly forbidden, as was the wearing of

jewelry (Education in Massachusetts Bay, 2020). Adhering to these standards showed respect

for the engagement of learning, the customs of Puritan society, God’s authority, and the

Puritanical pursuit of truth. It follows, then, that manuscript copies of these rules and precepts

were handed down within one’s family from the first Harvard student to the most recent – much

in the tradition of translatio studii (Harvard College Laws, 1655).

Ideology

As discussed, the seeds of total ownership over all aspects of colonial life had rooted and

germinated. From these sprouted seedlings, it became apparent that they were planted in tainted

soil. The Puritans’ set of beliefs was based on intertwining economic, educational, political, and

religious philosophies. By the 1690s, this aggregate ideology was both pervasive and invasive

and ushered in a dark period of colonial life (Rosenthal, 2009). Harvard came into ownership of

the New World’s first two printing presses (The Harvard Crimson, 1928). These early machines

enabled Harvard leadership and alumni to amass power through the control of information.

Using Harvard’s printing presses, the Puritans’ ideological beliefs could easily be printed

and propagated for propaganda purposes. Some propagandic examples include those by father

and son Increase and Cotton Mather (C. Mather, 1693; I. Mather, 1693). The manipulation

metastasized and culminated into an insufferable hysteria as oppressed individuals and vengeful

villagers accused their more vulnerable counterparts and wealthier townspeople of practicing

witchcraft (Boynton, 2014; Rosenthal, 2009). This led to the accusation of more than 200

colonists with 20 of those being tried, convicted, and executed (Rosenthal, 2009). Some of the

accused fled the Salem and Boston areas while others managed to maneuver through colonial

law to avoid a sentence to the gallows by the Harvard-tied court (Rosenthal, 2009). Broadly, this

period left a defining stain on the colony’s history; and narrowly, Harvard’s involvement in the

two-year incident left an indelible mark on (a) its moral authority, (b) its manifestation of divine

truth, and (c) the impact of the intellectual property it chose to publish.

In the years that followed, some are rumored to have privately expressed regret over their

involvement in the legal proceedings of those persecuted. However, only one judge, Chief

Justice Samuel Sewall (1700), publicly repented for his role while also openly reflecting on the

colony’s practice of slavery (Warren, 2016). In the years that followed, the calls for justice

would grow louder. Meanwhile, to the south, the stirrings of the New World’s second college

began.

Seeking Veritas by Shining Lux: The Founding of Yale

The Massachusetts Bay Puritans were not alone. On the eastern seaboard of the New

World, other colonies were under development. Two struggling Puritan-led ones, the Saybrook

Colony of 1635 and the New Haven Colony of 1638, involuntarily merged with the more

successful Connecticut River Colony of 1639 in the years of 1644 and 1662, respectively (Fisher,

n.d.). This colonial conglomerate received a new royal charter from England to then operate as

the Connecticut Colony (Kelley, 1974). By the mid-1600s, the Connecticut Colony Puritans

affirmed the importance of translatio studii and endeavored towards a colonial college of their

own (Kelley, 1974).

With the help of Harvard alumni and Massachusetts Bay Colony leaders, the Collegiate

School was established near Saybrook in 1701 (Kelley, 1974; Middlekauff, 1999). Its mission

was akin to its northern neighbor, but with one key distinction: they purposed to make this

college legal (Kelley, 1974). The Collegiate School, renamed Yale College in 1718, would

embody the lessons learned from Harvard’s growing pains while confronting a new set of

challenges.

The Chartering of Yale College

Led by Reverend John Davenport, one of the proud founders of New Haven Colony and

an overseer of the establishment of Harvard, Yale’s inception and materialization proved to be a

relay spanning decades. Advocates for the college found themselves at the constant crossroads

of lucre and law. When Edward Hopkins, a friend of Davenport’s, bequeathed an endowment

for the establishment of a New Haven Colony college, Davenport was hopeful (Kelley, 1974).

However, due to ambiguous wording in Hopkins’ will, the substantial gift was used instead to

subsidize grammar schools organized in Hopkins’ name with the remaining funds given to the

already-established Harvard (Kelley, 1974). With Hopkins’ estate now settled and the

Connecticut area colonies converged, the defeated Davenport left New Haven for Boston. It

would be 30 years after his death before his vision of a Connecticut college was realized (Kelley,

1974; Schiff, 2020).

The baton for this relay was then passed to Reverend James Pierpont and a group of

young ministers who also believed that Connecticut needed its own seminary to educate young

men for ministerial posts (Schiff, 2020). However, not overstepping their new colony’s charter

by incorporating a college was a challenge, as was finding sufficient funding (Kelley, 1974).

Finally, with the support of leaders from both the Massachusetts and Connecticut colonies, along

with the financial contributions of local colonists, “An Act for Liberty to Erect a Collegiate

School” was approved by the General Assembly (Fisher, n.d.). A key leader in this legal effort

turned out to be Massachusetts Chief Justice Samuel Sewell, the only repentant judge from the

Salem Witch Trials (Kelley, 1974). With the right to establish a legal, degree-granting college in

hand, the college was finally realized in 1701 (Kelley, 1974).

Once established, each founder donated a stack of books to effectuate the college’s

library (Kelley, 1974). However, for the founders-turned-trustees, the early days remained

complicated. Overcoming the challenges confronting the college’s first 16 years were described

as:

The affair of our School hath been in a Condition of Pregnancy. Painful with a witness

have been the Throwes thereof in this General Assembly. But we just now hear that after

the Violent Pangs threatening the Very life of the Babe, Divine Providence as a kind

Obstetrix hath mercifully brought the Babe into the World, and behold a Man-child is

born, whereat We all Rejoyce. (Dexter, 1916, pp. 146-148)

The site near Saybrook was inconvenient for prospective/ current students, families, and faculty

alike (Schiff, 2020). Interested communities within the colony began bidding to be the new

location of the Collegiate School beginning a tumultuous process (Schiff, 2020). Ultimately,

New Haven outbid them all in land offering and financial support (Schiff, 2020).

In 1716, the Collegiate School had a new home. Two years later, it had a new name.

The elderly slave-trader, Elihu Yale, whose step-grandfather helped found the original New

Haven Colony, had long been courted by Cotton Mather, a Harvard alumnus and Boston pastor

who was heavily involved in the Salem Witch Trials (Kelley, 1974; Yannielli, 2014). Mather

felt spurned by Harvard due to their denying him the presidency – a goal of his since his father,

Increase Mather served as Harvard president (Kelley, 1974). To spite Harvard, Mather

endeavored to help the Collegiate School out of its precarious position (Kelley, 1974). His

efforts availed 400 books donated by Elihu Yale to further grow the college’s library (Schiff,

2020). Additionally, Mather encouraged Yale to donate a King George I portrait to hang in the

college, as well as chintz cloth goods valued at £562 (Schiff, 2020). The cloth goods alone have

a value of $137,475.91 today (Nye, 2021). In a demonstration of gratitude for this generosity,

the trustees first named a building after Yale and then the entire college (Kelley, 1974).

Mission

With the college now entering a new phase of stability, instruction fulfilling translatio

studii was solidly underway. The mission of Yale was to be a place where “Youth may be

instructed in the Arts and Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for

Publick employment both in Church and Civil State” (Kelley, 1974, p. 7). The overarching

purpose of a Yale education was so “Every student shall consider ye main end of his study, to

wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly sober life” (Dexter, 1885a, p.

347). Like Harvard, the focus was squarely on God and His divine providence for the people of

the colony; therefore, Yale College also sought veritas (truth), but did so by shining lux (light) so

that this truth can be perfectly revealed (Oren, 1979). With the trustees voting on Lux et Veritas

as Yale College’s motto, the words were inscribed on the college seal in 1736 in both Latin and

Hebrew (Oren, 1979). In Hebrew, the motto reads Urim v’ Thummim, with a literal translation

of lights and perfections and an allegorical translation of revelation and truth as written in the

Vulgate, the 4th century Latin Bible (Oren, 1979). According to Oren (1979), Jews view Urim

and Thummim as a representation of God’s will. For Yale trustees, God’s will may be

understood through knowing Him and obeying His Word.

For ministers-in-training, Yale’s mission was not simply a lofty goal held for students. It

was an essential component for developing the discipline, character, and temperament that would

be needed to undertake the Puritanical pastoral duties that awaited them (Kelley, 1974). In fact,

early Yale College Regulations stated, “All Scholars Shall Live Religious, Godly and Blameless

Lives according to the Rules of God’s Word, diligently Reading the holy Scriptures, the Fountain

of Light and Truth; and constantly attend upon all the Duties of Religion both in Publick and

Secret” (Dexter, 1885b, p. 3). These words set the standards of the college.

Standards

The placing of Urim and Thummim upon the Hebrew Bible on the Yale seal signaled that

the college was founded upon the Christian Old Testament, which serves as a foundation for the

New Testament whose central themes surround the birth, death, and ascension of Jesus Christ

and the formation of the Christian church (Oren, 1979). Hence, abiding by these biblical

standards was synonymous with abiding by Yale standards. As such, transcribing all college

standards onto paper for regular review was part of student admission (Dexter, 1885b). For these

early seminarians, expectations included expert-level proficiency in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin

(Dexter, 1885b). Hebrew was critical for Old Testament understanding while Greek was

essential for New Testament study and interpretation of Greek-based Classics (Kelly, 1974).

Similarly, Latin was necessary for Latin-based Classics and it was the language of scholarship

(Dexter, 1885b; Kelley, 1974). The use of English was strictly forbidden within the college,

except in one’s bed chamber when conversing privately with another student (Dexter, 1885b).

Also, in the bed chamber, candles were to be extinguished between the hours of 11pm – 4am

(Dexter, 1885b).

Missing morning prayer, neglecting Sabbath worship, and partaking in alcohol (except

for warranted medicinal purposes) were considered crimes and punishable by monetary penalties

(Dexter, 1885b). Visits to taverns, inns, and victualling houses (restaurants) were forbidden;

and, absences for hunting, fowling, and voting needed permission first (Dexter, 1885b). Seeking

permission to participate in any of the above activities could be obtained from parents, a

guardian, or rector (college president) (Dexter, 1885b). These regulations outlined the ways in

which translatio studii was to occur. Adhering to these regulations taught discipline and

prepared graduates to perform their ministerial posts and become integrated with their colony’s

ideology.

Ideology

By the time Yale College was relocated to New Haven in 1718, many of the Puritan

colonists from Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Connecticut Colony had intermarried (Fisher,

n.d.). With a shared faith and common Congregational churches throughout the area, mutual

English colonial experiences in the same coastal region, and a future that had become

increasingly entwined, the two colonies were socially connected and had mirroring Puritan-

driven ideologies. Yet still, there were two divergences as indicated by the way they approached

governance and English law. The Connecticut colonists patiently followed a legal process to

establish their colony’s college; and, while they were the first colony to accuse one another of

witchcraft, their Connecticut courts tried and convicted far fewer than Massachusetts - even

during the zenith of the witchcraft hysteria (Boynton, 2014; Rosenthal, 2009; Taylor, 1908).

Aside from these two anomalies, both colonies had similar economic systems built on

traded lumber and goods (slaves included) between the tetrad points of England, Europe, the

colonies, and the Caribbean (Labaree, 1979). They sustained themselves by way of farming and

became accustomed to precarious interactions with the Indigenous population (Labaree, 1979).

With their ideological systems in place, the autonomous Puritans became increasingly

independent and protective of their New England lives (Barnes, 1923). Further, with the colonial

experiment of a Puritan majority and no minority group in a position to challenge the colonists’

ideologies and ethical perspectives, the colonists’ worldview only became further ingrained into

their identity and the rise of ownership was well underway (Burnham, 2016; Middlekauff, 2005).

The predominant attitude of ownership was one of “this is rightfully mine” and it stirred the

makings of a new nation (Burnham, 2016; Middlekauff, 2005). Moreover, many colonists felt

emboldened by the politically liberating philosophies of John Locke (1689) in the areas of

natural rights, labor theory of property, and ethical theory. These would later inspire early

American patriots and framers such as Thomas Jefferson (Middlekauff, 2005). By the time the

American Revolution began in earnest in 1775, student militias from the colleges helped defend

their communities; and, with trade routes interrupted, the availability of goods decreased while

entrepreneurship increased (Daniels, 1980; Schiff, 2020).

English Common Law in the Colonies

“The structure of a society shapes the way people handle their disputes” (Mann, 1987, p.

41). For the English colonists, this societal structure was influenced by Mosaic Law while their

legal structure had footings in medieval England. At the direction of King Henry II, what had

been a legal system based on varying local laws was unified into a common system that applied

judicial precedent to laws of crime, family/inheritance, and property (Baker, 2007). This system

utilized Curia Regis, the King’s Court, to regularly send judges to specific regions to hear

disputes and used local juries (Baker, 2007). The disputes were then resolved ad hoc, recorded,

and filed. These cases served as the beginnings of stare decisis, or binding precedent, for

comparable cases (Baker, 2007; Black, 2016). Judicial precedent, or case law, obligated the

courts to approach cases with similar points in the same manner during litigation (Black, 2016).

Reimagining legal procedure (a) established written records in the form of writs or royal orders,

(b) obligated juries to consider law and fact, and (c) developed the hierarchical court system

(Baker, 2007).

Nearly 500 years later, English Common Law proved enduring as it crossed the Atlantic

with the colonists. Once here, Stoebuck (1968) explores, in three theories, how well English

Common Law was assimilated in the colonies. The first is that the colonists continued Common

Law adherence immediately upon landing, but only adopted those laws that applied to their new

circumstances (Stoebeck, 1968). The second theory consists of colonists being more focused on

Mosaic Law rather than Common Law. Common Law then took the shape of a gradual

acceptance and together with Mosaic Law, the union would eventually yield the American

Common Law legal system (Stoebeck, 1968). The final theory involves Common Law as it

pertained to the Pilgrims rather than the Puritans. It argues that since the Pilgrims were largely

illiterate, they would have not been versed in the particulars of law (Stoebeck, 1968). While this

theory could be accepted as accurate, it does not pertain to this analysis since the colonies of

Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut were settled by educated Puritans rather than uneducated

Pilgrims.

Of the two relevant theories, the first was pervasive through the nineteenth century until

the second theory gained interest (Stoebeck, 1968). Neither theory, however, acknowledges the

expectation by the Crown that their citizens would continue to adhere to English Common Law

nor does either theory recognize the English Puritans repeated written commitment to abide by

their nation’s law as evidenced by their many agreed-upon charters. From the colonization

years, though, what is seen is more of a combination of the two theories as illustrated by two

events: the illegal founding of Harvard and the Salem Witch Trials. Plus, they valued (their

version of) Mosaic Law as demonstrated by the way they litigated the many witch trials. From

these, the Puritans seemed to adopt key laws that were convenient to their situation while

ignoring the ones that were not. Plus, they valued (their version of) Mosaic Law as demonstrated

by the way they litigated the many witch trials. Together, these two theories could represent the

reception of English Common Law in the colonies and how this common law footing provided

the foundation of American Common Law that emerged during the Revolution.

As the colonies matured and colonial Common Law developed, the body of rules evolved

past the will of lawmakers, their statutes, and their decisions to become a more contextual

enterprise based on equity (Berman, 1983). Equity here refers to reason and conscience of

community, which supports Burnham’s (2016) assertion that a society is reflected by the way in

which it structures its government. For the colonists, who strongly self-identified with their

respective colonies, this government structure mirrored overall opportunistic values of self-

directed financial management and self-directed governing (Berman, 1983; Burnham, 2016).

Therefore, by the late 1700s, the concept of self-determination to guide their daily lives and

shape their destiny was supremely valued.

Conflicting with this concept was the oppression felt from England’s authority over the

colonies (Burnham, 2016). The colonists understood that control meant power and after being

taxed without Parliamentary representation, the colonists’ grievances were mounting and their

power diminishing (Burnham, 2016). Parliament had enacted a series of laws including (a) the

Tea Act designed to support the British East India Company and discourage the purchase of

illegally obtained tea, (b) The Stamp Act to recoup monies spent on colonial protection during

The French and Indian War, and (c) the Coercive Acts which closed Boston Harbor as a penalty

until restitution was paid on all the tea lost during the Boston Tea Party (Burnham, 2016;

McCullough, 2005). Additionally, the Coercive Acts transferred colonial rule to a British

military governor who forbade all town meetings without his approval. These measures only

escalated tensions and colonists realized that revolting from British rule was the only way to

wield complete control over their lives and to take back what they believed to be theirs -

cementing the idea of “mine” into the American foundation. The verbiage scribed into

Massachusetts law on March 17, 1783, as the siege of Boston came to an end, illustrates this:

Whereas the improvement of knowledge, the progress of civilization, the public weal of

the community, and the advancement of human happiness, greatly depend on the efforts

of learned and ingenious persons in the various arts and sciences: As the principal

encouragement such persons can have to make great and beneficial exertions of this

nature must depend on the legal security of the fruits of their study and industry to

themselves; and, as such security is one of the natural rights of all men, there being no

property more peculiarly a man’s own than that which is produced by the labour of his

mind, therefore to encourage learned and ingenious persons to write useful books for the

benefit of mankind, Be it enacted. (p. 99)

Once independence was declared and secured, the framers of the Constitution of 1789

established the formal governmental structure which directly influenced the emergence of a

revised Common Law legal system in the United States (Burnham, 2016). Two key

Constitutional components, in particular, formed the basis of this new legal system – the

separation of powers and federalism (Burnham, 2016). Separation of powers protects citizens

from potential tyranny by providing governmental checks and balances through the division of

government into three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial (Black, 2016). In so

doing, each branch has specific duties and may not encroach on the others (Black, 2016).

Separation of powers has a major effect on federal courts (Burnham, 2016). Whereas the

Constitutional characteristic of federalism describes the two levels of government that are

present in the United States: federal and state (essentially creating, from a modern perspective,

51 separate legal systems, one for each state and one for the federal government) (Black, 2016;

Burnham, 2016).

English Common Law Intellectual Property Cases

There are three early cases of English common law interacting with intellectual property

matters (Bracha, 2019). Two of these resolved monopoly disputes and a third case involved fair

use against a copyright claim.

The Merchant Tailor’s Case

Davenant v. Hurdis (1599) was the first recorded case regarding monopolies. This case

involved the trade guilds that were prevalent in the late sixteenth century and the by-laws to

which their members were subjected (Baker, 2007; Wagner, 1937). When one such by-law

required guild members to send fabric to be finished by other trade members thereby spreading

the work to more people, many members resisted and protested by rioting in the streets of

London (Baker, 2007; Wagner, 1937). Davenant was a trade member who refused to fully abide

by the policy and was subsequently fined (Baker, 2007; Wagner, 1937). He litigated the matter

and argued that the by-law was illegal according to Common Law because it established a

corporate monopoly and thus the by-law was void (Bracha, 2019; Wagner, 1937). The Court

decided in his favor. In a culture where courts tended to stymie economic opportunities, this

legal case marks a turning point in economic enterprise (Wagner, 1937).

The Case of Monopolies

In Darcy v. Allen (1599), the contemporary common law on monopolies was created

(Bracha, 2019). This legal case went beyond the Davenant v. Hurdis decision that a corporate

by-law would be invalid if it created a monopoly. It established the principle that a royal grant

by patent would also be invalid if it created a monopoly, as well (Baker, 2007; Letwin, 1954).

The issue arose from Queen Elizabeth I granting her beau, Darcy, a patent to manufacture and

distribute playing cards (Baker, 2007; Letwin, 1954). Meanwhile, Allen, a haberdasher (dealer

in men’s clothing and goods), created and sold some playing cards in his London shop (Baker,

2007; Letwin, 1954). In response, Darcy filed an action of infringement; however, the Court

found that Queen Elizabeth I’s patent was invalid (Baker, 2007; Letwin, 1954). At a time when

opinions were not always written down, the reasoning of this important decision was

documented by Sir Edward Coke, the foremost jurist and politician of the Elizabethan and

Jacobean eras (Baker, 2007). Later, Coke’s “Institutes” and “Reports,” which encapsulated legal

learning and English Common Law from his time, would go on to have an enormous impact on

American law (Baker, 2007; Donahue, n.d.).

The Case of Fair Use Doctrine

Gyles v. Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt (1740) established legal precedent in copyright law

that is still seen today. This case involved the bookseller, Gyles, who purchased a book’s

publishing rights and then published it (Patterson, 1968). Not long after, publishers Wilcox and

Nutt hired Barrow as a writer to abridge Gyles’ book and publish it under a different, but similar,

title (Patterson, 1968). As a result, Gyles sued all three in an effort to stay the publication under

the Copyright Act of 1710/ Statute of Anne for copyright infringement (Patterson, 1968).

Unfortunately for Gyles, the Court created a distinction between true abridgments and colored

shortenings and believed the book abridged and published by Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt to be the

latter. The judge reasoned that an intentional attempt to create a new work from the original was

not made; therefore, there was no infringement upon Gyles’ copyright (Patterson, 1968).

Instead, the abridged work was just a colored shortening of the book created in an attempt to

bypass the law (Patterson, 1968). The decision established the fair abridgement doctrine, which

then led to the fair use doctrine.

Law and Intellectual Property Legislation

By 1624, legal opinions surrounding monopoly validity laws were still opaque enough

that Parliament deemed a clarifying provision was needed. In the Statute of Monopolies (1624),

they outlined that the validity of all monopolies must be examined, heard, tried, and determined

according to English Common Law. Three additional intellectual property laws would round out

the eighteenth century. The first affected colonial Common Law while the last two were enacted

after the American Revolution.

The Copyright Act of 1710/ Statute of Anne recognized the need for government and

court control over copyright ownership decisions. Up until this point, control was conducted by

private parties among themselves, often leaving the author out of the discussion (Bracha, 2010).

This first copyright law formed the basis for future copyright laws around the world (Bracha,

2010). It focused ownership protections on not only publishers, but also on authors. For

example, the first 14 years of copyright would benefit the publisher, the subsequent 14 would

compensate the author (Bracha, 2010). For books already in circulation, it provided a 21-year

protection. Although it recognized the importance of the author’s role, it neglected to clearly

define the author’s rights (Bracha, 2010). It did, however, encourage public learning and

regulate book trading (Bracha, 2010).

This federal law expressly stated its intention was to promote learning while protecting

the authors right to print, publish, and sell their books (The Copyright Act, 1790). Like the

George Washington signed into law was nearly identical to its British predecessor (Yu, 2007).

The only distinction was a 14-year protection for books already published, instead of 21 years

(Yu, 2007). Unfortunately, for the British, the Copyright Act of 1790 only protected the work of

Americans. For example, foreign authors, such as Jane Austen, who had works published in the

United States could not receive royalties on those books. It would be another 100 years before

this was rectified.

Patent Acts of 1790 and 1793

The Patent Act of 1790 was the first federal law to address patents. It, too, allowed

owners to hold their rights for a term of 14 years, after which, the patent was not renewable by

the owner (Prager, 1961). This was a point of contention for many innovators. Adding to their

frustrations, the application process was complicated and lengthy with only three people

authorized to approve patents – Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and the Attorney General.

Foreigners were barred from the process altogether (Prager, 1961).

Within three years, it became evident that the law needed to be revised. The Patent Act

of 1790 was repealed and replaced with the 1793 version. The issue of expiring patent terms

would not be addressed until the Patent Act of 1836 with further revisions occurring in 1952

(Prager, 1961). The new Patent Act (1793) outlined a much simpler process for acquiring a

patent. However, foreigners were still blocked from applying. To circumvent this, Americans

learned they could pirate technology from other countries and legally patent it in the United

States (Prager, 1961). This created a surge in patented, pirated innovations that contributed to

propelling the fledging country forward.

Summary

The perception of freedom, independence, and ownership over land and lives converged

with a sense of belonging that came from the intentional exclusion of “others,” whether those

others be the monarchy, the Indigenous population, or any colonist who was judged as unequal.

This phenomenon brimmed over into all aspects of the Puritans’ lives, including academia,

developing them into an egocentric society, though touted as a theocentric one, and engendering

another phenomenon – the acceptance of owning what is believed to be “mine.”

When in England, Puritan dominance was restricted to the simple representation of one’s

individual family unit. The Puritans understood the importance of extending their dominance, as

that yields ownership. Now in Massachusetts and Connecticut, the Puritans had assumed and

mastered ownership of a new land; ownership of people; ownership over all biblical

interpretation; ownership over university learning and ideas; ownership over economics;

ownership of customs, rules, political policies, and now government and law. It is no surprise,

then, that ownership over intellectual property itself would be next. In Chapter Three, the new

structure of ownership that is established in law and embedded in culture is examined.

CHAPTER THREE: EXPANSION: A NEW STRUCTURE OF OWNERSHIP

ESTABLISHED IN LAW AND EMBEDDED IN CULTURE 1801-1976

Overview

In Chapter Three, the evolution of the intellectual property construct moving the colonial

colleges of Harvard and Yale toward their present state is expanded into a new era. With the

winning of American independence, English Common Law is formally adopted as the general

law except when a statute is otherwise present (Burnham, 2016). This system of jurisprudence is

based on precedent, rather than statutory laws. Common Law is established by judges through

written opinions that are binding on future decisions determined by lower courts within its

jurisdiction (Burnham, 2016). Within this chapter, seminal Harvard and Yale intellectual

property disputes during this time are analyzed. These are discussed in conjunction with other

notable intellectual property case law and relevant legislation. For instance, original remedies

differ from today’s remedies. In an earlier epoch, injunctive relief was sought for trademark

protection for consumers purchasing inferior products under misleading labels. Nowadays,

injunctive relief is provided regardless of consumer confusion (Burnham, 2016). For this

historical analysis, legislation and intellectual property case law are better understood through

the lens of social influences, political development of a new nation, and a shift in religious

attitudes. However, together, these culminate into a conundrum. As the colleges move forward

through this intellectual property expansion of ownership possibilities, a lack of alignment with

their original mission statements becomes apparent. To correct this, the colonial colleges simply

revised their original purposes and created the idea of the research institution. Lastly, a summary

closes the chapter.

American Legal and Economic Systems

Since the 1800s, Harvard and Yale have repeatedly interacted with the American variant

of the Common Law system over an entire spectrum of issues. While neither institution is

litigious, neither is diffident and their in-house counsel stands ready to mount a robust defense in

response to a plaintiff or bring swift action against a defendant. Early on, Harvard and Yale

understood that American Common Law is a consequential contributor to the United States’

powerful economic system (Bastedo et al., 2016). This is due to stare decisis, the consistency

and predictability of a system that relies on judicial opinion as precedent, allowing economic

enterprises to pre-determine the boundaries in which to operate freely (Burnham, 2016: Landes

& Posner, 2003). As such, institutions of higher education have become critical contributing

factors for this nation’s economic development acting as employers, entrepreneurial producers,

investors, industry partners, and intellectual property innovators (Bastedo et al., 2016).

Therefore, this three-way symbiotic relationship between university, economics, and law is a

trifecta that first emerged when the nation was new.

American Common Law

Hallmarking the American Common Law system are seven principles: (a) stare decisis,

(b) binding and persuasive authority, (c) court hierarchy, (d) jurisdiction, (e) primary and

secondary authority, (f) the interrelationship of various sources of law, and (g) dual court system.

Stare decisis. “Stare decisis et non quieta mouvere” in Latin translates to “to stand by

precedents and not to disturb settled points” in English (Burnham, 2016, p. 70). This principle of

precedent signals that future similar cases should be decided in like manner as past ones

(Burnham, 2016). Although this precedent principle survived in England and was transferred to

the United States, it was rejected by the balance of Europe due to competition from the simpler

Roman-canon law and the French Revolution, which a legislative/ democratic approach was

favored over judge-rule (Burnham, 2016).

Binding and persuasive authority. Some sources of law are determined to be binding

(mandatory) while other sources are simply persuasive. Authority of a binding stare decisis

requires lower-level courts to follow the decisions of higher-level courts within the same

jurisdiction. Authority of a persuasive stare decisis negates the court’s obligation to follow

precedence; although, it may be persuaded to do so merely by reasoning (Burham, 2016). In

essence, whether authority is binding or persuasive, the authority is determined by how stare

decisis principles are applied (Fine, 1997).

Court hierarchy. The court level is a three-tiered structure consisting of the United

States District Courts for trial-level courts, the United States Courts of Appeal for first level

appeals courts, and the United States Supreme Court for final level arbitration of law (Fine,

1997). The hierarchy largely determines the extent to which a opinion by one court will have a

binding effect on another (Fine, 1997).

Jurisdiction. The principle of jurisdiction connotates two different meanings. The first

refers to the federal government’s authority to exercise its judicial power over all people and

things with regards to a specific matter, such as deciding a case or issuing a decree (Burnham,

2016; Fine, 1997). The second kind of jurisdiction involves a system of geographic jurisdictions

to distribute courts into each of the three hierarchal levels. Federal jurisdictions consist of 94

trial-level district courts, 13 first level appellate courts, and only one Supreme Court (Fine,

1997).

The interrelationship of various sources of law. Various sources of law can be derived

from both the state and federal legal systems and can interrelate with one another (Fine, 1997).

Governing this interrelationship is a complex set of criteria that establishes priority (Fine, 1997).

Primary and secondary sources of law authority. These various law sources are

divided into primary and secondary sources. Primary authority can be binding or persuasive

depending on the court and other contributing factors (Fine, 1997). Conversely, secondary

authority does not constitute actual law; therefore, it cannot be binding (Fine, 1997). Its

usefulness is to (a) act as a guiding authority on how to resolve specific matters, (b) be a case

finding tool, and (c) to yield additional information about a specific matter (Fine, 1997).

Dual court system. The role of the United States federal court is to administer justice

fairly and impartially within the boundaries set forth by the United States Constitution and

Congress. This is accomplished through providing language clarity for the Constitution and by

narrowly defining statutory law which may be written broadly (Burnham, 2016). It is federal

law that protects copyright and patent ownership, trademarks, and trade secrets, whereas state

law offers some additional protections for trademarks and trade secrets (Burnham, 2016). Unlike

state courts, federal courts are not, in and of themselves, generators of common law. Federal

statutes, then, are derived from legislation.

Intellectual Property Legislation

Since the first Patent Acts were legalized in 1790 and 1793, many changes were afoot in

the new nation. The seat of government was moved from Philadelphia to Washington, DC and

Thomas Jefferson was no longer charged with patent approvals as Secretary of State. Instead, he

had become John Adams’ vice president; and, by 1801, he was elected president. The union’s

geographical shape was also changing. The Louisiana Territory had been purchased for $15

million and every couple of years more states were steadily added to the union (Berkin, Miller,

Cherny, & Gormly, 2014). Lewis and Clark embarked on their western expedition of discovery

and the Missouri Compromise was a way to maintain the balance between the number of free

and slave states (Berkin et al., 2014).

Meanwhile, tensions continued between the British and the young Americans

culminating in the War of 1812 over trade restrictions and westward expansion. The war ended

in 1821 when Britain officially recognized the United States as an independent nation under the

Treaty of Paris – but, not before the battles inspired Francis Scott Key to write the “Star-

Spangled Banner” (Berkin et al., 2014). The Articles of Confederation and the United States

Constitution were written (Berkin et al., 2014). The Monroe Doctrine became law forbidding

any further foreign colonization of the United States and the Erie Canal opened (Berkin et al.,

2014). By the year 1836, Texas was battling Mexico for its independence and in Washington

DC, the need for a patent process organizational overhaul became apparent. Despite all of the

changes introduced in 1836, a Patent Act revision would follow in 1952. Simultaneously, other

intellectual property legislation was being introduced. Copyright legislation was first adopted in

1802 with revisions occurring in 1819, 1831, 1870, and 1909, with an enormous overhaul in

2016. Trademarks were formally addressed in their own Act in 1946. Finally, in 1971, the

Sound Recordings Act was enacted and interacting with all of this intellectual property

legislation were the colleges of Harvard and Yale.

Patent Act of 1836

The Patent Act of 1836 began the modernization and organization of the patent

application process (Landers, 2017). This was accomplished through the establishment of an

official Patent Office within the State Department. Although still in the State Department, the

Secretary of State would no longer be assigned to patent oversight. Instead, a new role, the

Commissioner of Patents, was created to handle patent management and patent application

processes (Patent Act, 1836). Besides the administrative changes, the law made the application

process simpler for applicants and more efficient for the Patent Office. It also utilized libraries

as a public resource for applicants to be able to check for the existence of all approved patents

prior to making their making an application (Patent Act, 1836). Additionally, it gave patent

holders the possibility for a 7-year extension to the original 14 years. Lastly, it lifted the

prohibition on foreigners from owning United States patents. Thirteen years later in 1849, a

further improvement was needed. The Patent Office was moved from the State Department to

the Department of the Interior (Patent Act, 1836). Later in 1925, it was moved to its current

residence within the Department of Commerce and is now entitled The Patent and Trademark

Office (Landers, 2017).

Patent Act of 1952

The changes made to the patent law endured until 1952 despite economic depressions in

the 1890s and 1930s when a fear of monopolies led to a mistrust of patents and yielded the

Sherman Antitrust Act (Landers, 2017). In 1952, the previous Patent Act of 1836 was amended

to require supplemental elements when applying to be a patent holder (Patent Act, 1952). No

longer was it sufficient for an innovation to be merely new and useful. It now had to be non-

obvious, meaning the product would not have been obvious to another individual with similar

skills in the same field as the innovation (Patent Act, 1952). As technology advanced, patent

appreciation increased and innovative discoveries were encouraged (Landers, 2017).

After the Copyright Clause in the United States Constitution and the Copyright Act of

1790, two amendments followed. The first came in 1802 which required a copyright notice to

inform others of the underlying claim of ownership on a work (Copyright Act, 1802). The

consequence for neglecting to include this copyright notice would result in copyright

invalidation, as decided by Ewer v. Coxe (1824). The 1802 amendment also included etchings

as copyrightable material (Copyright Act, 1802). The 1819 amendment expanded the

jurisdiction to hear copyright (and patent) cases to district courts (Copyright Act, 1819).

By 1831, there was a realization that the current copyright protections were not sufficient

and a subsequent revision was needed. Hence, the protective term was extended from the

original 14 years to 28 years with a potential expansion of an additional 14 years (Copyright Act,

1831). This revised Act was more in keeping with copyright laws of Europe. Now, American

only covered their future works, but it also included current copyrighted works whose term had

not yet expired (Copyright Act, 1831). This version also protected music compositions

(Copyright Act, 1831). Three years later another provision was added – copyrights became

transferrable. By 1846, copies of the copyrighted work had to be deposited at the Smithsonian

and the Library of Congress, which were now no longer functioning solely as museum and

library, respectively, but were expanded to function as repositories (A Brief History of Copyright

in the United States, n.d.). In 1865, photographs became copyrightable (A Brief History of

The impact of the Copyright Act of 1870 was threefold because it not only affected

copyrights, but patents and trademarks, as well. As such, it is also known as the Patent Act of

1870 and the Trademark Act of 1871. For copyrights, the Act finally enabled authors to own the

copyrights of their translated works (Copyright Act, 1870). The Act also moved copyright

registrations from district courts to the new Library of Congress Copyright Office (Cole, 1971).

For creators of fine arts, protections for paintings and sculptures were also included in the Act.

For patents, the United States Patent Office was formally recognized and given the authority to

determine patent conflict resolutions in “first to invent” and “first to file” disputes (Copyright

Act, 1870). Finally, for trademarks, this was Congress’ first attempt to formally recognize

trademarks (Copyright Act, 1870). However, the language in the Act was ambiguous and caused

confusion between copyrights and trademarks because both invoked the Copyright Clause as

pointed out by Librarian Ainsworth Spofford who advocated for change (Cole, 1971). The

Supreme Court agreed with Spofford and ruled that the ambiguity between copyrights and

trademark was not appropriate, which sent Congress to reexamine the Trademark concept. One

year later, it was reinstituted under the Commerce Clause (Patry, 1994).

International Copyright Treaty of 1891

Copia, in Latin, translates to “plenty” in English. Therefore, the original idea of

States was engaged in the modern concept of pirating due to copyright laws prohibiting

foreigners to hold copyrights of their works when they were published in America (Kampelman,

1947). Because of this practice, American publishing houses were able to sell inexpensive

copies of European authors’ works and keep all of the profits for themselves (Kampelman,

1947). In acts of retribution, foreign nations reacted in like manner against American authors.

The International Copyright Treaty arose when unions representing authors, printers, and

publishers banded together to advance change towards international cooperative and reciprocal

More revisions were needed with the Copyright Act and by 1909, the protected categories

grew to encompass all works of authorship (Copyright Act, 1909). Additionally, it lengthened

the federal statutory protections to 28 years with a potential extension of another 28 years

(Copyright Act, 1909). The Act also gave legal rights for anyone to make a mechanical

recording (via a phonograph record) of any musical composition without the permission of the

paid a set fee for the license (Copyright Act, 1909).

With the Copyright Act of 1976, the Copyright Act of 1909 was repealed and replaced.

The 1976 version was engendered because of two major developments. First, technological

advances and their influences on copying methods of copyrighted material may cause copyright

infringement (Alexander & Alexander, 2017). Second, it needed to be reevaluated in

anticipation of the Berne Convention which would expect the United States to align itself

accordingly with international copyright processes and law (Alexander & Alexander, 2017).

There were also benefits for the copyright holder - federal statutory protections were extended to

their entire life plus an additional 50 years after their death (Alexander & Alexander, 2017;

rights, copyright notice and registration, infringements, defenses and remedies for infringements,

and fair use (Alexander & Alexander, 2017; Copyright Act, 1976). With fair use codified as the

Fair Use Doctrine, permission to copy copyrighted material in certain instances became

acceptable on a specific “case by case basis” if four factors were first considered (Alexander &

Alexander, 2017, p. 732). These include (a) purpose and character of use, (b) the nature of the

copyrighted work, (c) the portion used in relation to the whole, and (d) the effect of the use on

the potential market (Alexander & Alexander, 2017). Some examples of fair use may include

the purposes of scholarship, teaching, and research, as well as journalism or preservation.

Trademarks – The Lanham Act of 1946

As discussed in Chapter One, the Lanham Act gave the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) the authority to register all trademarks (Brown, 1999). The Act

created a federal system for trademark registration. To be eligible for federal statutory

protections, trademarks must be in use in commerce and be distinctive (Lanham Act, n.d.). Each

of these requirements is defined in the Lanham Act. For the “in use in commerce” stipulation, if

the trademark is not already in use, an applicant may still register for it by expressing a good

faith intent (Lanham Act, n.d.). However, the trademark will be given to the filer who uses it

first in commerce. For the “distinctive” qualification, a trademark must be identifiable and

distinguishable to represent particular goods (Lanham Act, n.d.). They are divided into the

fanciful, suggestive, descriptive, and generic categories (Lanham Act, n.d.).

The Sound Recordings Act of 1971

Because the Copyright Act of 1909 included all author’s “writings” for protections,

sound recordings were not originally viewed as writings (Kastenmeier, 1971). Due to numerous

unauthorized duplications of sound recordings by the 1970s, plus the courts’ narrow view on

what comprised a writing, a Congressional legislative act was necessary to address other

protectable property (Kastenmeier, 1971). The Sound Recordings Act of 1971 covered this gap

(Kastenmeier, 1971). Public performances, though, were still not recognized as needing federal

statutory protections.

Case Law

Interwoven between this intellectual property legislation, are legal cases that further

clarified the law. For Harvard and Yale, their first interactions with the new American Common

Law were largely centered on either real property or personal property. Over time, intellectual

property became to be understood as an embodied form of personal property (Burnham, 2016).

As such, the transition was natural from property litigation to intellectual property litigation. Just

as the Harvard and Yale institutionalists understood that property ownership yields control and

power, they quickly found that same principle applied to intellectual property ownership, as well;

and, by 1934, Harvard had already developed a patent and copyright ownership policy for

innovative works in health and therapeutics (Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual

Property, 2021). The following is a look at some of Harvard and Yale’s early interactions with

law where property ownership was asserted.

Harvard Legal Disputes

Harvard College and Massachusetts General v. Francis Amory (1830). The earliest

example of a property case involving Harvard centered around trust property. Upon the death of

John McLean, his will stated that his spouse, Ann McLean, would receive $35,000. An

additional $50,000 would be placed in a trust whose investments would yield interest payments

for Mrs. McLean (Pickering, 1831). The trustees entrusted with these investments were Jonathan

Amory and Francis Amory, who were to abide by the trust’s stipulation that the principle be

invested in a productive stock using their sapience (Pickering, 1831). John McLean died during

this time of the trust’s execution leaving Francis McLean as sole trustee. Upon the death of Mrs.

McLean, the principle was to be divided equally between Harvard College and Massachusetts

General Hospital (Pickering, 1831). However, there was a problem. Francis McLean chose to

invest in manufacturing companies and insurance companies and there was nothing left to donate

to Harvard and Massachusetts General, who were anticipating the funds (Pickering, 1831).

Although the will preemptively exonerated the trustees from any liability of losses, Harvard and

Massachusetts General chose to sue Amory for his choice of investments, which they deemed

were negligent. On appeal, the judge, Massachusetts Justice Samuel Putnam, found that Amory

had fulfilled his fiduciary duty despite the losses and was not liable (Pickering, 1831). This case

gave American law the “prudent man rule,” which indicates that individuals tasked with

investing other people’s money must do so in the same manner as if they were investing their

own (Pickering, 1831). This means that speculative investments should be avoided and each

investment should be given due diligence (Pickering, 1831). More interesting, this case showed

that Harvard would take others to court in order to receive what they perceived to be theirs.

Pierce v. Inhabitants of Cambridge (1849). A property taxation case, Pierce v.

Inhabitants of Cambridge (1849), was brought by Professor Pierce and his family who lived in a

property owned by Harvard and located within Harvard Yard. Pierce’s annual salary was $2,000

and $400 of that ($33.33 per month) went towards rent (Pierce v. Inhabitants of Cambridge,

1849). When it came time to pay taxes on the property, Harvard left them to the lessee. After

Pierce begrudgingly paid the annual property tax bill of $33.60, he determined he may be able to

claim Harvard “officer” status, which would have exempted his paying property taxes on the

house (Pierce v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 1849). However, the homes of Harvard officers were

used for literary, scientific, charitable, or benevolent purposes – and Pierce’s home was not

(Pierce v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 1849). The Court did not rule on his being an officer of

Harvard due to it being a moot point since Harvard recognized him as a lessee (Pierce v.

Inhabitants of Cambridge, 1849). As such, Pierce lost his case. The judge cited that allowing

lessees in similar situations would place an undue financial burden on all inhabitants of

Cambridge (Pierce v. Inhabitants of Cambridge, 1849).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of Boston

(1870). First, many of the following legal disputes in this chapter and the next have “President

and Fellows of Harvard College” in the case name. This is the formal title of the Harvard

Corporation, which is the oldest corporation in the western hemisphere. Now with regard to this

case, although this complaint was filed by Harvard in 1870, it was based upon a parcel of land

bequeathed to the college in 1660.

For 200 years, all was well until the Board of Aldermen representing the City of Boston

voted to widen a street using a rear portion of the bequeathed parcel (President and Fellows of

Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of Boston, 1870). To finance this project, the

Aldermen placed an assessment on the property citing that the college had never paid taxes on

the given property (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of

Boston, 1870). Harvard sought a writ of certiorari, which is Latin for “to make certain (by being

more fully informed)” by seeking a judicial review of the lower court’s decision (Black, 2016, p.

109). Harvard desired to quash (terminate by making null or void) the proceedings of an

assessment being placed on the property and argued that their college’s charter implicitly stated

that the school would be exempt from civil impositions (Black, 2016; President and Fellows of

Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of Boston, 1870). The college’s charter

preempted the town’s charter even though the land was deeded to the school after the town’s

charter (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of Boston,

1870).

The Court found that the land assessment was a form of taxation, which was considered a

civil imposition (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of

Boston, 1870). Therefore, the writ of certiorari was granted and the school was exempt from the

assessment (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of Boston,

1870). Although the Court found in favor of Harvard, the president and fellows of Harvard do

not seem to have considered the ethics involved. The road needed to be widened due to

Harvard’s presence in Cambridge and the school would be a primary beneficiary of the project.

Yet, the improvement’s financial burden was placed on the City and its citizens.

Puente v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (1957). This intellectual property

case was over an idea that Puente shared with Harvard Law School Dean Griswold via 15 letters

and a telegram. Puente contends that Griswold deceived him into disclosing the idea for a loose-

leaf tax service for seven Latin American countries (Puente v. President and Fellows of Harvard

College, 1957). After considering the idea, Griswold notified Puente he was no longer interested

in pursuing the idea (Puente v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1957). Yet, four years

later, Harvard Law School pursued a remarkably similar idea by announcing that, in cooperation

with the United Nations, it was undertaking a project that involved the collection and publication

of foreign tax information into a series (Puente v. President and Fellows of Harvard College,

1957). When Puente heard his general idea was becoming a reality, he filed a complaint in four

courts; however, it was determined his idea was neither new nor novel (Puente v. President and

Fellows of Harvard College, 1957). The result was a district court dismissal that would later be

affirmed by an appeals court. Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Company and Lawson v. American

Motorists Insurance Corporation were cited as precedent demonstrating that Harvard understood

the role of stare decisis, which enabled them to operate freely within the pre-determined

boundaries of the law (Burnham, 2016; Landes & Posner, 2003).

Yale Legal Disputes

Yale University Press v. Row, Peterson, and Company (1930). As a compiler,

illustrator, and publisher of reference books, Yale University Press, an official department within

Yale University, filed a preliminary injunction against school textbook publisher Row, Peterson,

and Company over two type of copyright infringements. They are (a) piracy by copying original

text and original illustrations and (b) piracy using illustrations that Yale University Press came to

own (known as unfair use) (Yale University Press v. Row, Peterson, and Company, 1930). The

specific book at the center of this complaint was the United States history book, “The Pageant of

America” which contains over 9,000 illustrations (Yale University Press v. Row, Peterson, and

Company, 1930).

In the textbook publisher’s “The Growth of a Nation” and “The Story of a Nation,” there

a total of 520 illustrations (Yale University Press v. Row, Peterson, and Company, 1930). Of

these 520, 154 were identical to “The Pageant of America” (Yale University Press v. Row,

Peterson, and Company, 1930). Even so, the injunction was denied by the Court. Had it been

successful, the textbook publisher would have been in violation of contractual agreements

causing irreparable injury of timely delivery of textbooks to school districts in two states (Yale

University Press v. Row, Peterson, and Company, 1930). The Court, instead, ordered the

textbook publisher to file a bond to assure recovery by Yale University Press upon final

adjudication and provide monthly accounting statements to Yale (Yale University Press v. Row,

Peterson, and Company, 1930).

Yale University v. Town and City of New Haven (1950). Over the years, Yale

University and New Haven have repeatedly found themselves on opposing sides of a court room.

In this case, Yale filed a complaint because the city was taxing the Yale residential properties of

married veteran students who returned to resume their studies after World War II (Yale

University v. Town and City of New Haven, 1950). As such, Yale argued that these buildings

were used for educational purposes and not taxable even though some buildings had other public

uses prior to their emergency conversion for housing married veteran students (Yale University

v. Town and City of New Haven, 1950). The test of property taxability was not whether a

lessor-lessee relationship was present or whether Yale gained revenue from said relationship, but

instead, whether the students’ residential living accommodations promoted Yale’s educational

objectives (Yale University v. Town and City of New Haven, 1950). The Court entered

judgment for Yale who recovered overpayment of taxes from the city and all properties in

question were removed as taxable properties (Yale University v. Town and City of New Haven,

1950).

Yale University v. Benneson (1960). In 1960, Yale claimed trademark rights. A

business owner of a motor inn in the Yalesville section of Wallingford named their motel “Yale

Motor Inn” after the influential benefactor who helped fund the college (Yale University v.

Benneson, 1960). In so doing, it placed the motel’s owner, Edward Benneson in a legal battle

with Yale after the college filed an injunction barring the usage of the name by his motel (Yale

University v. Benneson, 1960). Because both organizations were operating in the same state, the

school’s injunction stated that the motel’s name may cause the public to be deceived or confused

about a potential affiliation with the school (Yale University v. Benneson, 1960). The trial court

applied this test and determined any confusion between the two entities would result from

ignorance or carelessness, rather than deception or confusion (Yale University v. Benneson,

1960). Therefore, Yale’s injunction was denied and Yale Motor Inn’s name went unchanged.

This case shows the vigor with which Yale would protect intellectual property to which it laid

claim – regardless of their adversary just being a small business owner in a non-competitive

industry 15 miles away.

Yale University v. City of New Haven (1975). The City of New Haven appealed a

decision from the Court of Common Pleas which found that Yale’s real and personal property

was nontaxable between the years of 1969 – 1972 citing the college’s charter (Yale University v.

City of New Haven, 1975). The trial court held that Yale was to be reimbursed for the taxes paid

plus interest for those years (Yale University v. City of New Haven, 1975).

Notable Intellectual Property Lawsuits

United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation (1933). In United States v. Dubilier

Condenser Corporation, F. W. Dunmore and P. D. Lowell were hired by the U. S. Department of

Commerce as radio testers. While employed with the United States government in 1921,

Dunmore and Lowell conceived of, and began developing, patentable improvements to radio

technology as a side endeavor to their government positions (United States v. Dubilier

Condenser Corporation, 1933). Upon completing their innovations in 1922, Dunmore and

Lowell sold their patents to Dubilier Condenser Corporation. Soon, the government learned of

this transaction and sued its employees because it assumed that any patents stemming from

related research would inherently be assigned to the government (United States v. Dubilier

Condenser Corporation, 1933). As property, a patent’s title can only pass by assignment;

however, Dunmore and Lowell were not hired to be researchers by the government, which left

the idea of assignment of their innovations in flux (United States v. Dubilier Condenser

Corporation, 1933). After many years, the case made its way up to the Supreme Court, where it

affirmed the lower courts’ decision and outlined that employers’ rights on an employee’s

creation only extend to the invention if the employee was explicitly hired to invent (United

States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation, 1933). This case became precedent for those similar

involving employees of higher education institutions.

Simmons v. California Institute of Technology (1949). This landmark case set the

precedent for academic intellectual property commercialization. Simmons v. California Institute

of Technology surrounds the work of a former graduate engineering student, Edward Simmons.

After graduation, he was hired by the university as an hourly-based employee and used as a

consultant on Donald Clark’s research project, known as “Impact Research” (Simmons v.

California Institute of Technology, 1949). Though he had yet to begin his formal appointment as

a full-time university fellow, California Institute of Technology utilized his contributions in the

project. However, once Baldwin Locomotive Works became interested in commercializing the

new technology, faculty member, Dr. Clark, fraudulently persuaded Simmons to sign a contract

indicating Simmons’ share of royalties would be reinvested into the research project (Simmons

v. California Institute of Technology, 1949). This act enabled the university to deny Simmons

his portion of royalties (Simmons v. California Institute of Technology, 1949).

When Simmons realized that fraud had occurred, he sued the institution and entered into

a 13-year long legal battle with the institution. Although a lower court had decided that

Simmons should receive his share of royalties, the Supreme Court of California ultimately held

that a license and royalty agreement between Simmons and the university (Exhibit A) was

separate from the license and royalty agreement between Simmons and Baldwin Locomotive

Works (Exhibit B (Simmons v. California Institute of Technology, 1949). The remedy sought by

Simmons was based on Exhibit A’s rescission making the agreement null and void (Simmons v.

California Institute of Technology, 1949). Because Exhibit B was predicated on Exhibit A, it too

should be null and void (Simmons v. California Institute of Technology, 1949). The Court found

this argument not to be persuasive.

Sociocultural Influences

Between the years 1801-1976, the United States went through an enormous sociocultural

shift that further matured the nation and solidified Harvard and Yale’s thinking on identity and

intellectual property ownership. With the Founding Period behind them, Americans moved on to

realizing a more perfect union; and, while many felt emboldened by this new democracy and set

their eyes on innovative interests, others remained disenfranchised.

Politics and Human Rights

The slave trade was still a sinister machine whose product affected generations of Black

families whose very lives were predetermined by those who owned them. Women, who were

routinely deprived of the right to participate fully in society were devising ways to engage with

their male counterparts over equal rights. In 1809, when many states forbade women to own

property independent from their husbands, Mary Dixon Kies applied for a patent (America’s

Story from America’s Library: Mary Kies, n.d.). Kies had invented a method for weaving silk

and straw together for hat-making purposes (America’s Story from America’s Library: Mary

Kies, n.d.). Her invention was granted intellectual property protection and she became the first

woman in the nation to hold a patent (America’s Story from America’s Library: Mary Kies,

n.d.). In 1831, Yale graduate Eli Whitney produced the cotton gin using his 1794 patent, which

100

had not been validated until 1807 (Berkin et., 2014; Kelly, 2013). The invention ultimately

increased the demand for slave labor by making it sustainable (Berkin et al., 2014).

Meanwhile, the nation’s borders were expanding to encompass southern and western

territories in a novel idea epitomized as “manifest destiny” (Berkin et al., 2014). Not only were

Americans drawn to settling other regions, but they were also interested in the western territories

as a convenient place to relocate the eastern Indigenous people. With the Indian Removal Act,

the diaspora of these people to property west of the Mississippi River became legal and displaced

50,000 individuals within one year (Berkin et al., 2014). By 1829, the nation’s population had

swelled to four million people with more immigrants continuing to arrive (Berkin et al., 2014).

Throughout the 1800s and 1900s, more states were added to the union continually changing its

shape. In 1857, the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was decided by the Supreme

Court and held that Congress does not have the right to ban slavery in states and that slaves were

not considered citizens. Growing tensions regarding the morality and rights of slavery

culminated into Civil War between the United States and those southern states who joined

together as insurrectionists (Berkin et al., 2014).

At the helm of the nation and tasked with holding it together during this tumultuous time

was President Abraham Lincoln. By 1863, President Abraham Lincoln had signed the

Emancipation Proclamation, an act that freed many slaves; however, emancipating those slaves

in border states would require an amendment to the Constitution and in December 1865, the

Thirteenth Amendment was ratified and freed all slaves (Berkin et al., 2014). Afterwards, a

period of reconstruction to repair the commerce and conscience of the nation began, coupled

with a focus on industrialization (Berkin et al., 2014). Only five years on, Black men would be

given the right to vote (Berkin et al., 2014). However, the notion of separate but equal took hold

101

and became legal with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court decision that held

segregation as constitutional.

While White men of the courts were mulling over how Black and White citizens could

coexist, women representing every ethnicity were advocating for the right to vote. Finally, 50

years after Black men could vote, women were afforded the same right with the Nineteenth

Amendment in 1920, while simultaneously fighting the Spanish Flu pandemic, caring for their

families, debating oppositionists, and supporting the nation during World War I, women were

also campaigning for the right to vote (Berkin et al., 2014). Infiltrating the halls of Harvard and

Yale proved harder and took even longer.

After World War II, despite applying to Harvard, women were only admitted to

Harvard’s female coordinate institution – Radcliffe (Harrison, 2012). However, with the United

States’ controversial involvement in the Vietnam War, social, political, and cultural changes

were afoot. The result was a cultural revolution that benefitted those who had been deprived of

equal opportunities. In 1967, women were given access to Harvard’s main library and in 1977,

they were granted admission to the school (Harrison, 2012). Similarly, in 1969, women were

finally accepted into Yale (Women at Yale, 2019). Interestingly, as society demanded Harvard

and Yale relinquish control in some areas, in other areas, such as intellectual property ownership,

the institutions’ control only tightened.

The Arts

With the divisiveness felt by some in the nation, the arts offered a sense of belonging in

shared, cultural spaces. Art, music, and literature began to capture a sense of nationalism that

was unique from the rest of the world.

102

Fine arts. With the westward expansion, paintings began depicting the Romanticism

view of American landscape. There was also an interest in historical pieces documenting

consequential moments in American history like “Washington Crossing the Delaware” by

Emanuel Leutze (Pohl, 2002). In 1870, the Metropolitan Museum of Art opened in New York

City placing the city on its path of becoming art’s epicenter (American Art, 2021). In the late

nineteenth century/early twentieth century as Impressionism swept Europe, a version of

American Impressionism led by Mary Cassatt gained prominence in the United States (Pohl,

2002). As the 1900s progressed, American Realism portraying ordinary life in the city would

find its place in history and later impact Social Realism (Pohl, 2002). Simultaneously, American

Regionalism gained popularity through work like Norman Rockwell’s portrayal of life in New

England and Grant Wood’s “American Gothic” portrait of farmers in the Midwest (Pohl, 2002).

Finally, mid-century experimentation with abstract expressionism from artists such as Jackson

Pollock influenced modernism and postmodernism – all mirroring a maturing nation that

illustrated self and societal expression (American Art, 2021; Pohl, 2002).

Music. Music and dance were another avenue that led to the nation’s self-identity.

While Classical Europe was creating moving symphonies and poignant operas, the United States

produced a plethora of music with which to identify. From African American spiritual songs to

Yankee anthems and immigrant folk songs, to the invention of ragtime, jazz, blues, country, rock

and roll, and disco to the debut of the musical, American music represented all who made the

United States their home (How Music Built America, 2021). Amplifying the reach of this music

were the patented American inventions of the radio and the microphone (University of Georgia’s

Special Collections Library, n.d.).

103

Literature. Writers were also contributing to culture through American literature.

During the Early National Period ending in 1830, Bostonian Edgar Allen Poe gave the nation

short stories and poems that reflected the helplessness he felt surrounding his brother’s passing

and the financial panic of 1837 (Brief Timeline of American Literature, 2013). During the

Romantic Period years of 1830-1870, Salemite Nathanial Hawthorne offered Dark Romanticism

short stories, such as “The Scarlet Letter” and “The House of the Seven Gables” (Brief Timeline

of American Literature, 2013). Realism and Naturalism defined 1870-1910 and yielded works

like Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” (Brief Timeline of American

Literature, 2013). The Modernist Period followed and ended in 1945 and provided the nation the

poetry of New Englander Robert Frost and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” (Brief

Timeline of American Literature, 2013). In the Contemporary Period, Harper Lee gave America

“To Kill a Mockingbird” (Brief Timeline of American Literature, 2013). Each period offered

uniquely American stories which served to unify a shared American experience.

Innovation Interests

During 1801-1976, individuals and universities around the world were creating products

that would enrich culture and humanity in various areas. In 1816, in the year without a summer,

English novelist and mother Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley penned “Frankenstein,” before Charles

Dickens, Bram Stoker, and Edgar Allan Poe contributed to the gothic novel genre. In 1921,

Frederick G. Banting, Charles H. Best, and J. J. R. Macleod at the University of Toronto

discovered insulin thereby extending the life expectancy for those with Type 1 Diabetes from

infancy to adulthood. Four years later in 1926, Robert Goddard invented rocket fuel while at

Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts (Hunley, 1995). The 1930s found Eli Franklin

Burton, Cecil Hall, James Hillier, and Albert Prebus designing the electron microscope while at

104

the University of Toronto (Newberry, 2007). During that same decade, the University of

Oxford’s Howard Florey was toiling and finally gave humanity the healing gift of penicillin in

1939 (Nobel Prizes & Laureates, 2021). Only fifteen years later in 1946, John W. Mauchly and

J. Presper Eckert of the University of Pennsylvania invented the first modern computer, which

would ultimately revolutionize all aspects of global life (Norberg, 2016).

In 1955, teeth were made stronger, thereby lasting longer, thanks to Joseph C. Muhler

and William Nebergall adding fluoride to toothpaste at Indiana University (National Inventors

Hall of Fame, 2021). The University of Florida’s Robert Cade concocted Gatorade in 1965,

which not only better hydrated athletes and created a new sports tradition with the victors’

Gatorade Shower, but it also proved to have enormous economic benefit, as well (Kays &

Phillips-Ham. 2002). After a legal settlement in the 1970s between Robert Cade and partner

Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. and the University of Florida over ownership rights, the parties agreed

to a royalty distribution of 20% for the University of Florida, yielding them $12 million per year

since 1973 (Kays & Phillips-Ham, 2002). Lastly, polio with its paralytic effects, was eradicated

in the United States due to the efforts of Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburg in 1966 (Tan &

Ponstein, 2019).

Harvard. Meanwhile at Harvard specifically, cultural contributions were also underway.

In 1946, Harvard’s Edward M. Purcell was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for his

nuclear magnetic resonance technology used in medical imagining (Harvard Discoveries, n.d.).

During this same period, more medical devices were devised. Boston Latin School and Harvard

graduate, Paul Zoll, invented the modern defibrillator and heart pacemaker in 1947 and 1952

respectively, each having since saved countless lives by correcting heart rhythm disturbances

(Harvard Discoveries, n.d.). Throughout the 1950s, George Wald identified the importance of

105

Vitamin A for vision and that its deficiency contributes to color-blindness, which won this

Harvard scholar a Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1967 (Harvard Discoveries, n.d.).

In 1971, Harvard graduate Judah Folkman detected the process by which tumors draw in area

blood vessels for sustenance and survival, thereby increasing the understanding of how blood

vessel tumors and cancers grow and spread (Harvard Discoveries, n.d.).

Yale. Like Harvard, Yale was exploring innovations during this time. To better foster

cultural modernization, a formal engineering program was developed in 1852; and, in the 1860s,

a mechanical engineering Yale professor, August Jay DuBois scribed four engineering textbooks

that laid the groundwork for this program and others (Kelly, 2013). By 1932, the engineering

program had blossomed into the Yale School of Engineering (Kelly, 2013). In other areas, in

1946, molecular biology gained ground through the research of Yale professors, Josh Lederberg

and Edward Tatum and their discovery of bacterial recombination as a mechanism to understand

biochemical genetics using E. coli as a subject (Lederberg & Tatum, 1946; Yale Discoveries,

n.d.). Later, Lederberg would study anthrax and serve on the United States Defense Science

Board and President Jimmy Carter’s Cancer Panel; further, for his contributions towards the

greater good, President George H. W. Bush awarded him with the National Medal of Science

(Nobel Prizes & Laureates, 2021).

Religious Attitudes

With cultural influences and innovative interests beyond the Bible and the propagandized

writings of the early Puritan colonies, a concurrent shift in religious attitudes was underway. In

the early 1800s, the Founding Period had closed and gave way to a Second Great Awakening and

the Restoration Movement, which ensured a Protestant worldview would be embedded in the

nation (Association of Religion Archive Data, n.d.). By, 1836, many intellectuals in New

106

England became adherents of Transcendentalism and explored the relationship between humans

and nature (Berkin et al., 2014). In the meantime, many Christians engaged in various

Millenarian Movements predicting Jesus’ return and end times (Association of Religion Archive

Data, n.d.). In 1856, Charles Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species,” which was

followed by a less literal interpretation of the Bible through Christian Modernism (Berkin et al.,

2014). Also, by the mid-1800s, involvement with spiritualism and mysticism as a way to

commune with the dead was accepted by some (Association of Religion Archive Data, n.d.).

Around that same time was the Third Great Awakening, which lasted until the 1920s. A

Charismatic/ Pentecostal Movement began as some Christians became filled with the Holy Spirit

and as such, gained the ability to speak in tongues (Association of Religion Archive Data, n.d.).

For those representing various denominations, there was an effort to unite Protestants during the

Ecumenical Movement (Association of Religion Archive Data, n.d.). Due to all of the social

changes during the mid-1900s, there was an effort to counter liberal biblical interpretations with

the Christian Fundamentalism Movement. Also, during this time, interest grew in a nation

devoid of religion with the Secular Movement.

In response to the changing attitudes on religion, New Evangelism emerged by socially

engaged conservatives (Association of Religion Archive Data, n.d.). Interest in mysticism

returned during the 1960s with New Age Religion. In the 1970s, renewed focus was placed on

compelling marketing strategies for the Church Growth Movement. This was followed by the

Religious Right Movement to use politics as a way to address moral decline. Finally, in an effort

to be more inclusive and aware of social injustices, progressive Protestants began the Progressive

Christian Movement.

107

Mission Statements Revised

The changes in religious attitudes and cultural interests are reflected by the mission

statements of Harvard and Yale. Again, as presented in Chapter Two, the original mission

statement of Harvard surrounded the life of the Christian student. It stated:

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the maine

end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, and

therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and

learning and seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself to

prayer in secret to seek it of him. (DeMar, 1995, pp. 102-103)

After the dissociation with Protestantism and the original mission statement of the college was

abandoned, the mission statement was replaced with a resected quote from the College’s original

Charter. It simply stated, “In brief: Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of

students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational

opportunities” (Harvard Mission Statement, 2013).

A similar position was taken at Yale as they became more areligious. As discussed in

Chapter Two, the mission of Yale was to be a place where “Youth may be instructed for Publick

employment both in Church and Civil State (Kelley, 1974, p. 7). Further, the purpose of a Yale

education was so “Every student shall consider ye main end of his study, to wit to know God in

Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly sober life” (Dexter, 1885a, p. 347). Later, this was

replaced with:

Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through

outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice. Yale

educates aspiring leaders worldwide who serve all sectors of society. We carry out this

108

mission through the free exchange of ideas in an ethical, interdependent, and diverse

community of faculty, staff, students, and alumni. (Yale Mission Statement, n.d.)

While the themes of citizenship and leadership may have biblical connotations, biblical

references had been wholly eliminated in the mission statements by this point. Instead, the

missions of the two early seminaries were reprioritized to reflect the more ambiguous roles of

producers of good people, good things, and good environments. Omitting scriptural foundations

suggested a relinquishment of God’s control, which offered the universities freedom to rebrand

themselves as competitive research institutions.

Summary

With the Founding Period closing and the Early National Period opening, the intellectual

property construct was moved further along in this new era. An American variant of English

Common Law was adopted and the system of jurisprudence, based on judicial precedent rather

than statutory laws, was in place. Relevant legislation and case law were presented, noteworthy

Harvard and Yale intellectual property legal disputes were examined, and injunctive relief was

discussed as a remedy. Because this is a historical analysis, law is understood more clearly from

the perspective of historical sociocultural influences. Politics, human rights, and the arts

combined to ingrain a socio-cultural identity unique to Americans and by way of, an identity

unique to the colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale. This intrinsic identity is inseparable from

the institutions’ modi operandi when interacting with American Common Law and legislation

during ownership claims of real or intellectual property. This, combined with changing religious

attitudes, Harvard and Yale became products of the world around them. However, this world did

not align with their original mission statements. To correct this, the missions of both colleges

were revised and the idea of the research institution for the development of good was created.

109

While both colleges relinquished control in some areas, their control only tightened in others as

they now became producers of consequential intellectual property. In Chapter Four, this rise of

dominium (absolute ownership and control of property) is examined.

110

CHAPTER FOUR: THE RISE OF DOMINIUM: 1977-2020

Overview

Chapter Four moves the colleges into recent years that have yielded more intellectual

property ownership filings of complaints, patents, and copyrights than all of the prior years

combined. As American ideals change and technology advances quicken, interests in intellectual

property opportunities are pursued giving rise to capitalistic competition. Ownership becomes

more than a matter of pride and principle; it becomes a position of power. He who holds

intellectual property ownership determines the direction of significant knowledge that can

potentially be commercialized. In Chapter Four, the rise of commercialization is examined. As

Harvard and Yale claim to be honoring innovation, the idea that knowledge can be hoarded

emerges. Just as some products can be introduced into the market for financial gain, others may

be purposefully kept out to redirect the consumption of alternate innovations (Rooksby, 2016).

Harvard and Yale’s intellectual property ownership motivations continue to be explored.

Mission statements are again revised, and university intellectual property policies are developed

to protect university stakeholders. Common good within their respective communities is touted

as university discoveries become intellectual capital and their economic impact is explored.

Once again, legislation and notable intellectual property case law relating to Harvard and Yale

are analyzed. Finally, a summary closes this fourth chapter.

Honoring Innovation or Hoarding Knowledge

By now, there is widespread acceptance of the construct that intangible items can possess

property interests. Left for debate, though, is the issue of who should hold the ownership rights

of the intellectual property. Proponents believe in the value of honoring innovation by providing

111

incentives for producers of inventive works. Conversely, critics equate owning creative works as

a way to control and collecting what should be free and equitable access to knowledge.

(Merges, 2011)

Mission Statements Once Again Revised

As discussed, reverential language from Harvard’s Charter was omitted completely with

the last revision of their mission statement. The most current rendition is now centered on

citizenship and leadership in the statement, “The mission of Harvard College is to educate the

citizens and citizen-leaders for our society. We do this through our commitment to the

transformative power of a liberal arts and sciences education” (Harvard Mission Statement,

2013).

Meanwhile, Yale merely shortened their last revised mission statement. It now reads,

“Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding

research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice. Yale educates aspiring leaders

worldwide who serve all sectors of society” (Yale Mission Statement, n.d.). Yale, too, is focused

on the service of leadership, but has also circled back to the basics of translatio studii by

emphasizing the generational transfer of valued knowledge and the tradition of scholarship – a

practice typical of research institutions.

Not mentioned, in either of the contemporary mission statements, is the incented mission

to competitively pursue federally funded research and development and the associated

substantial economic rewards from intellectual property ownership. This mission of Harvard and

Yale turned these Puritan seminaries practicing translatio studii into economic enterprising

institutions needing intellectual property policies in place as a means to mitigate potential legal

disputes.

112

Intellectual Property Policies Developed

At Harvard, by 1975, the need to codify their extant patent and copyright practices from

1934 became apparent. The result was the formation of the Office of Technology Development

and a “Statement of Policy in Regard to Inventions, Patents, and Copyrights” which underwent

amendments once per decade in 1986, 1998, and 2008. Since that time, emendations have come

in more rapid succession in 2010, 2013, and 2019 with the current revision simply entitled, “IP

Policy” (Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property, 2021). These adjustments are

attributed to the evolution and application of educational technology, communications media,

and computer programs for administering university duties (Statement of Policy in Regard to

Intellectual Property, 2021). Moreover, there is the ongoing affirmation that common good

results from research-driven discoveries and products, but the practice also creates a complex set

of circumstances for fulfilling university obligations and distributing equitable rewards between

university, innovators, and industry sponsors (Rooksby, 2016). Further complicating the

innovative process and intellectual property policy development is the consideration of federal

policies, legislation, and funding (Rooksby, 2016). Harvard’s IP Policy now covers inventions

and patents; copyrights; computer software; unpatented materials; royalty sharing; IP committee

and changes to policy; and miscellaneous matters as a preemptive attempt to ease tensions and

overcome the aforementioned challenges in accordance with their commitment towards the

common good (Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property, 2021).

Similarly at Yale, there is a primary mission of benefitting society through translating

research into products and services (Yale Office of Cooperative Research, 2021). To better

accomplish this, in 1982, the university created the Office of Cooperative Research in response

to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (discussed in detail later). The function of the new office was to

113

manage all aspects of intellectual property ownership, including the technology transfer process;

research considerations; invention disclosures and assessments; patents, copyrights, and

trademarks; license agreements guidance and marketing advisement; commercialization; conflict

of interest navigation; revenue distribution counsel; and, funding opportunities (Yale Office of

Cooperative Research, 2021). As such, it was also tasked with intellectual property policy

development. Unlike at Harvard where there is one overarching IP policy parsed into pertinent

sections, the structure at Yale consists of multiple individual policies pertaining to the kind of

intellectual property standards about which one is inquiring. For example, there is a (a) patent

policy, (b) investors distribution policy, (c) management of equity in new venture policy, (d)

Research, 2021). Each of these setting intellectual property ownership expectations, thus

providing harmony to the hum of Yale’s monetization IP machine - all to the drum beat of the

common good.

Common Good in Communities

Comprising a democracy’s common good are the material, cultural, or institutional

elements that are provided to all community members to fulfill a communal obligation for caring

for specific interests for the betterment of all (Hussain, 2018). These elements range from public

parks, roadway systems, property systems, public safety protections, the judicial system,

educational facilities, cultural institutions and art, history, and science museums, public

transportation, civil liberty protections, clean air and water, national security, medical

institutions, and technology that could enhance the lives of community members (Hussain,

2018).

114

With the interests of the public heralded as the purpose of intellectual property

development and ownership, Harvard and Yale IP committees draft intellectual property policies

to echo this. Harvard stipulates that their policy should first promote the idea that original works

produced there should add meaning to the common good through dissemination (Statement of

Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property, 2021). Tacked on to this sentiment is the idea that a

more robust application of legal protections may be necessary so that intellectual properties can

benefit society in the way the university envisions (Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual

Property, 2021). Hedging further, Harvard relays that while their intellectual property policy

should place the common good above monetary gain, they purpose to financially benefit from

the property, whether it be from the innovative work itself, the faculty or student’s use of the

university’s facilities, equipment, or support staff to create said work, or through its third-party

intellectual property contractual commitments (Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual

Property, 2021).

Yale, too, touts the common good as the centerpiece of their intellectual property

ownership process. However, this lofty notion is quickly tempered with a disclaimer regarding

the design of their intellectual property policy. It states that, with few exceptions, Yale will be

the owner of all patentable products produced at the university (Yale Office of Cooperative

Research, 2021). Before faculty employment may commence and before student grants may be

applied for, Yale’s patent policy will be agreed upon by show of signature (Yale Office of

Cooperative Research, 2021).

Using these policies as contracts and applying the law, when necessary, enables the

universities to control the direction of the property and determine the economic gain of the

property, thereby directly regulating what is in the best interest for the greater community.

115

Therein lies the problem because two competing narratives emerge: “the public’s interest in

higher education (that is, what accrues to the public from it), and the private interest individuals

and entities have in intellectual property” (Rooksby, 2016, p. 8).

University Discoveries become Intellectual Capital

From 1977-2020, university-generated intellectual property continued to increase in

consequence and scope. In 1974, musician, mathematician, and medical doctor Raymond

Damadian, received the first patent in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology. By

1977, while professing at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, he had

completed the first full body MRI Scanner (SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University,

2021).

At the University of Virginia in 1985, Robert Berne formulated Adenocard, a therapeutic

treatment for cardiac arrhythmia. Once patented, he commercialized the medication and

designated the university to receive a portion of his royalties to fund further cardiovascular

research (McNally, 2017). To date, the University of Virginia has received over $50 million

dollars from their percentage of royalties (McNally, 2017).

In 1996, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Stanford University doctoral students, embarked on

a research project that sought to improve upon internet search engines. Two years later, their

work would be incorporated as “Google” with a parent company currently worth $100 billion

(Neate, 2021). By 2011, Stanford made the list of the nation’s top 300 organizations who have

been granted US patents (Kelly, 2013).

Another invention with economic potential was devised at Johns Hopkins University by a

team of biomedical engineering students in 2014. Their life-saving creation consisted of an

injectable foam designed to stop patients from hemorrhaging. This injectable foam has proven

116

more beneficial than traditional tourniquet or gauze techniques and has immediate application for

soldiers in combat (Sneiderman, 2014).

Finally, from helpful foam to healthful apples, according to Abadi and Palmer (2020),

Red Delicious apples have fallen out of favor among consumers due to their perceived bland

taste and meaty texture. This preference costs apple growers in excess of $250 million a year

(Abadi & Palmer, 2020). Because Washington State produces the majority of the nation’s

apples, the impact is felt the hardest there (Abadi & Palmer, 2020). To remedy this, Washington

State University researchers have spent two decades breeding the perfect apple - the “Cosmic

Crisp.” To fund this new cultivar, investors spent $500 million in research and $10 million in

marketing, while the university is still fending off propagators by filing lawsuits and proving

patent infringements through improved cultivar DNA analysis (Abadi & Palmer, 2020; Nargi,

2020). Meanwhile, back at Harvard and Yale, inventors were pursuing their own discoveries –

many of whom would be bestowed the Nobel Prize.

Harvard

During the 1970s, Harvard’s Sheldon L. Glashow and Steven Weinberg explored how

electromagnetism and radioactivity are two products of the same force while positing the

existence of a new type of subatomic particle. Their research was awarded with the 1979 Nobel

Prize in Physics (Nobel Prizes & Laureates, 2021).

Concurrently within Harvard’s walls, Walter Gilbert was decoding the structure of genes

to obtain critical information for cell reproduction and survival. Understanding the DNA

sequence within genes is critical for determining the gene’s function – a process with counseling

and medical diagnoses applications and one that granted Gilbert the 1980 Nobel Prize in

Chemistry (Harvard Discoveries, n.d.; Nobel Prizes and Laureates, 2021).

117

Still simultaneously and winning the 1980 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, was

Harvard’s Baruj Benacerraf for his work in detecting the genetic system culpable for allergies,

immunization reactions, and transplant rejection (Nobel Prizes & Laureates, 2021). A year later

at Harvard, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel won the 1981 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their

research in discovering how the brain interprets visual information (Nobel Prizes & Laureates,

2021).

By 1988, Harvard had created the world’s first patented animal, a transgenic mouse,

which advanced cancer research and ultimately led a Harvard team to devise a method for

preventing a common blood cell cancer among young children in Africa and grew cancer

research exponentially (Harvard Discoveries, n.d.). This proprietary transgenic mouse who is

trademarked “OncoMouse” by Du Pont will be discussed more fully in the Economic Impact

section. The following year, Harvard’s Norman F. Ramsey was granted the 1989 Noble Prize in

Chemistry for his investigation of energy levels in atoms, which culminated in his invention of

precise atomic clocks and the hydrogen maser (Harvard Discoveries, n.d.; Nobel Prizes &

Laureates, 2021).

The 1990s brought two additional Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Medicine for Elias J.

Corey’s method for making a drug containing complex molecules from simple and available

chemicals and for Joseph E. Murray’s research to prevent organ transplant rejection, respectively

(Harvard Discoveries, n.d.).

The new century at Harvard gave the world discoveries from the past. Harvard graduate

and Anthropology professor Christina Warinner led an international team at the embattled

biblical site of Megiddo in modern northern Israel to study the culture, trade routes, and diet of

inhabitants who lived in this complex society 3,000 years ago (Siliezar, 2021). Using the ancient

118

teeth of 16 individuals excavated from a cemetery, DNA and plaque were analyzed in a Harvard

lab to discover the food particles left behind from poor dental hygiene (Siliezar, 2021). Using

paleo proteomic techniques developed in-house, Warinner not only found dietary staples such as

wheat and sesame seeds, but also exotic fare such as banana, turmeric, and soybeans which

established trade routes between Africa and South Asia, and East Asia earlier than once thought

(Siliezar, 2021).

Elsewhere in the ancient Near East, in southern Israel, Harvard engages with the Leon

Levy Expedition in Ashkelon, which uses archaeology to understand the scale and scope of the

city from Bronze Age to the time of the Crusaders, establish maritime trade of seaport, and create

innovative ways to share the site’s history and restore cultural monuments (Mission Statement of

the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, n.d.).

Lastly, going further back in the past in this new century, is the out-of-this-world work

led by Harvard through a collaboration with Stony Brook University, California Institute of

Technology, Brown University, and NASA. A model was created to study greenhouse gases

from volcanoes and meteorites that led to a warm and wet environment potentially causing

microbial life to emerge on the red planet (Burrows, 2021). Researchers believe by

understanding Martian geophysical processes, its environmental fluctuations, and the impact

these fluctuations had on the planet, applications could be made to other planets, such as Earth

(Burrows, 2021).

Yale

During this same period, Yale was also creating innovations that would have a

contributing impact on humanity. Prior to the research of Sid Altman in the 1970s-1980s,

ribonucleic acid (RNA) was understood to have a limited function as an information-carrying

119

molecule ferrying between the genes of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribosomes (Nobel

Prizes & Laureates, 2021; Yale Discoveries, n.d.). While at Yale, Altman, discovered that RNA

also acts as an enzyme which means it can be designed for use as a disease therapeutic, winning

Altman the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Nobel Prizes & Laureates, 2021; Yale Discoveries,

n.d.).

Also in the 1980s, John Fenn produced electrospray ionization for use in mass

spectrometry. His technique created ions by aerosolizing highly charged liquid droplets and is

used for biological macromolecule analysis, giving Fenn the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2002

(Nobel Prizes & Laureates, 2021).

Concurrently, Yale’s Bill Prusoff (working with Tai Shin Lin) formulated the first

antiviral compound and breakthrough Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

therapeutic (Yale Discoveries, n.d.). This patented intellectual property produced the drug,

“Zerit,” which is designed to extend the lives of those afflicted with AIDS and by doing so has

generated $551 million based on 76,755 prescriptions – yielding $40 million in royalties for Yale

alone (Yale Discoveries, n.d.).

In the following decade, David Ward, while at Yale in the 1990s, conceived of tools and

techniques needed for successfully mapping the genome, including Fluorescence In-Situ

Hybridization (FISH), which is used to localize DNA sequences on chromosomes (Yale

Discoveries, n.d.). Meanwhile, Yale professor of mathematics, Ronald Coifman, performed

pioneering work in the mathematical field of “wavelet packets” (Yale Discoveries, n.d.).

Tapping into the music of the universe - math, Coifman developed a system of patterns and

structures that enabled an enormous amount of information to be compressed and restored

accurately (Yale discoveries, n.d.).

120

Moving into the new century, in the 2000s, Yale’s Mark Reed invented molecule-sized

currents and Joan Steitz investigated how RNA and protein-containing particles are situated in

the origin of life and basic life processes (Yale Discoveries, n.d.). At the same time, Sherman

Weissman, a Yale geneticist who is known for completing the nucleic acid sequence of the SV40

genome (a polyomavirus that can affect both people and monkeys), improved upon techniques of

studying gene expression with regard to human major histocompatibility complex in 2001 (Yale

Discoveries, n.d.).

In 2008, Yale graduate and professor, Tso Ping Ma, performed valuable research in the

engineering filed of semiconductor devices and contributed to the development of

Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (CMOS) gate dielectric technology (Yale

Discoveries, n.d.). By the next year, in 2009, another Nobel Prize was awarded to Tom Steitz

(husband of the above Joan Steitz) for developing the first high-resolution crystal structure of a

ribosome (Yale Discoveries, n.d.). Finally, in 2020, Yale inventor, David A. Spiegel patented

his small molecule-based antibody-recruiting compounds for cancer treatment, which brings the

total of Yale-held intellectual property patents to a grand total of 1,358 active patents across 60

countries (Yale Office of Cooperative Research, 2021).

Economic Impact of Intellectual Capital

As indicated, not only is common good attached to intellectual property, but there is

economic value, as well. Aforementioned in the “Problem Statement” of Chapter One, the

commercialization of knowledge can be attributed to the neoliberal economics of the 1980s.

During this time, policies promoted deregulation, free-market capitalism, and reduction of

government spending through privatization and austerity (a set of political-economic policies

designed to reduce government budget deficits) (Rooksby, 2016).

121

It is evident, though, that university intellectual properties of discoveries, innovations,

and creations had long been brewing beneath the surface and the favorable economic climate of

the 1980s simply punctured a hole in the surface allowing greater commercialization potential to

spew out. Acting as the boring auger is what Yale considers to be a visionary piece of legislation

– The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, known as the “The Bayh-Dole” Act

of 1980 (Yale Office of Cooperative Research, 2021). In the four decades since, this

monumental law has proven immensely beneficial to university innovation, society at large, and

the economy primarily because it functions to justify intellectual property (Campbell, 2019;

Rooksby, 2016; Yale Office of Cooperative Research, 2021). Hence, the easing of these

restrictions, coupled with key legislation, escalated commercial growth within the public and

private sectors – universities included – which in turn increased competition and spending

between institutions (Rooksby, 2016).

From 1993-2013, Yale’s president and professional economist, Richard Levin, who had

analyzed the correlation between scientific research and national economics, met this economic

opportunity by investing $1 billion in new facilities for science, medicine, and engineering to

make Yale even more competitive (Kelly, 2013). Levin also expanded full-time faculty

members (assistant, associate, and full professors) to 60 in the School of Engineering and

Applied Sciences alone (Kelly, 2013). Meanwhile, the Yale Office of Cooperative Research

(2021) became an intellectual property spearhead for the institution by identifying, counseling,

and transitioning early-stage technologies into profitable companies.

The enormity of the economic impact of intellectual property on universities cannot be

overstated; and, no analysis on the topic is complete without including what many have

determined to be the most valuable piece of intellectual property ever: OncoMouse (Rooksby,

122

2016). OncoMouse, a product of Harvard Medical School and the University of California at

San Francisco, is a transgenic mouse developed to be very susceptible to cancer and tumor

growth due to a genetic modification making it a carrier of the oncogene (Rooksby, 2016).

OncoMouse became the first animal to ever be patented making this decision a momentous

turning point in the history of academic science and intellectual property ownership (Rookby,

2016). While the mouse held mammoth potential for cancer treatments and scientific discoveries

in human health, it also raised questions how the public would benefit from Harvard, and Du

Pont, holding the private rights to a living innovation (Rooksby, 2016). Du Pont, as the chosen

patent license holder, was given exclusive rights to sell the mouse to other institutions for

research, which enabled them to set the terms. These terms included (a) an inflated purchase

price, (b) restrictions from sharing the mouse with other universities, (c) required reporting of all

research findings to Du Pont, and (d) an agreement to give Du Pont “reach-through” rights on all

discoveries using the mouse (Rooksby, 2016).

According to Rooksby (2016), despite the terms being unfavorable for other research

universities, 100 institutions agreed because the research potential was incredibly enticing.

Because Harvard and Du Pont have never revealed the nature of the royalties each entity has

received from the sales of the mouse, conservative estimates easily place the value in the tens of

millions (Rooksby, 2016). Other universities, seeing the potential of Du Pont’s patent

powerplay, began creating their own patented living innovations causing even greater

competition between institutions (Rooksby, 2016). Ultimately, the OncoMouse patent expired in

2005 beginning an eight-year legal battle for Harvard and Du Pont. The details, of which, are

discussed below in “Case Law.”

123

With conditions ripe for proprietary discovery, patent applications have greatly increased,

producing hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This haul is typically shared between

institutions and inventors. Economist, Paula Stephan (2015), estimates that American

universities earned $1.88 billion in intellectual property net royalties in the year 2007 with $650

million shared between the inventors. The results are portfolio powerhouses of inventions and

patents that have culminated into engines driving regional economic development and

comprising a larger aggregate of assets making Harvard and Yale the universities with the two

largest endowments in the world - $40 billion and $30 billion respectively (Kowarski, 2020;

Yale Office of Cooperative Research, 2021).

Legislation

As innovations evolve, so does legislation. Laws emerging during this modern period

provided further protection for American intellectual property. As discussed, one went a step

further. The Bayh-Dole Act justified intellectual property ownership. The succeeding three laws

further clarify the Copyright Law and Patent Law.

The Bayh-Dole Act (Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act) of 1980

The Bayh-Dole Act and similar legislation in foreign countries are attributed to the

overall rise in patent applications (Fisch et al., 2015; Mirshmsi & Farzi, 2018). Signed into law

by President Jimmy Carter, and known by the names of its sponsors, the Bayh-Dole Act is an

amendment to the Patent and Trademark Act officially entitled The University and Small

Business Patent Act, which increased patent applications in the United States (Link & Van

Hasselt, 2019). The purpose of the amendment was to promote and support federally funded

research under the provision that there is a disclosure between the faculty and university

regarding the invention and its intended owner (Link & Van Hasselt, 2019). Essentially, the

124

Bayh-Dole Act provided justification for intellectual property by allowing broad intellectual

property claims founded on its requirements (Campbell, 2019; Rooksby, 2016). For developing

countries like Iran, the need for legislation like the Bayh-Dole Act was recognized and used to

model their own intellectual property laws as they pertain to research that is publicly funded

(Mirshmsi & Farzi, 2018). Mirshmsi and Farzi (2018) maintained that research, and its

subsequent creations, are the foundations of development in all countries. However, learning

how to manage intellectual property is vital for turning intellectual property products into

economic profits that can benefit society (Mirshmsi & Farzi, 2018). The Bayh-Dole Act gives

society this potential through the capability of transferring technology to the private sector

through Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), thereby creating a commercialization potential

and generating revenue (Link & Van Hasselt, 2019).

Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA) of 1995

The Digital performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA) of 1995 is a copyright

law that demonstrates Congress’ first attempt to address advances in digital communication

technologies. Up until this point, copyright holders were not given exclusive performance rights

to perform their works by way of digital audio transmission. Therefore, Congress sought counsel

from the Copyright Office regarding whether this unprotected intellectual property should gain

federal statutory protection. The recommendation was to rectify the issue by granting the

emerging technology its own protection in the form of a specific piece of legislation. The result

was the DPRA, which gives exclusive performance rights to copyright holders to perform their

works via digital audio transmission when the work is performed in public. Traditional radio

analog transmissions are not covered; however, digital radio transmission, digital cable

transmission, and music services are protected by the DPRA.

125

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011

In 2011, the most recent and significant change occurred to the patent system since 1952.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act shifted the nation from a “first to invent” process to a

“first inventor to file” thereby dispelling with the problematic interference proceedings, or

priority contests, between multiple patent applications. Of all countries with a patent system, the

United States was the last to adopt a “first inventor to file” process.

Title 17 of the Copyright Act outlines major revisions through a series of amendments.

Among numerous other protections, this latest rendition allows for involuntary transfer of

intellectual property; rights for visual artists; establishes the National Film Registry under the

National Film Preservation Act, includes criminal penalties for copyright infringement,

reformations for royalties, provisions relating to copyright use for distance learning, expansions

for copyrighted reproductions to make works more accessible for people with all kinds of

abilities, copyright exceptions for home viewers who choose to skip credits of movies, satellite

television provisions, and copyright extensions for the duration of an individual’s life plus 70

years beyond death (Title 17 of the United States Code, 2016).

Case Law

With the potential commercialization and control attached to innovations, conflicts

occasionally arise. Coupled with opaque intellectual property policies that may not be nuanced

enough to cover every area or circumstance, litigation has become the transparent solution for

enforcing intellectual property laws.

126

Harvard Legal Disputes

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Bioscience, Incorporated

(2002). A medical apparatus manufacturing company had been operating on Harvard’s campus

since the business’ inception by a Harvard professor in 1901. However, in 1907, Harvard asked

the business to move off campus. After they moved nearby, the company continued its research

and manufacturing business under the name of “Harvard Apparatus” (President and Fellows of

Harvard College v. Harvard Bioscience, Incorporated, 2002). For nearly 90 years, business

continued as usual. In 1996, there was a change in ownership. The new owners kept the name

and added another: “Harvard Bioscience.” Then, they infused the word “Harvard” with a

crimson red color and styled it in a block font (President and Fellows of Harvard College v.

Harvard Bioscience, Incorporated, 2002). These two changes were grounds for Harvard to sue

them for trademark infringement and state law violations (President and Fellows of Harvard

College v. Harvard Bioscience, Incorporated, 2002). By this time, the new owners had moved

the company to Dover 15 miles away. The company moved for partial summary judgment on

Harvard Apparatus only (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Bioscience,

Incorporated, 2002).

The Court ruled that Harvard’s near 100-year delay in objecting to the business’ use of

the word Harvard that it helped found was too long to consider a laches defense (an unreasonable

delay in pursuing a claim) (Black, 2016; President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard

Bioscience, Incorporated, 2002). The name of “Harvard Bioscience” was voluntarily dropped.

Invitrogen Corporation v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2008).

Invitrogen and Harvard had both been researching molecular cloning and expression of mutant

DNA polymerases. Ultimately, both organizations filed patent applications with the USPTO for

127

exclusive ownership rights of essentially the same invention (Invitrogen Corporation v. President

and Fellows of Harvard College, 2008). This caused the USPTO to declare an interference and

placed Harvard as the Senior Party and Invitrogen as the Junior Party (Invitrogen Corporation v.

President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2008). The party designation is determined by first

filing date of the application. Harvard’s first application regarding the patent was about one year

before Invitrogen. This left the Junior Party with the burden of having to prove that they had

priority of invention before Harvard’s first application date (Invitrogen Corporation v. President

and Fellows of Harvard College, 2008). Invitrogen failed to do so and the patent was awarded to

Harvard. The result was a complaint filed by Invitrogen to remedy the USPTO’s decision

(Invitrogen Corporation v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2008). Again, Invitrogen

could not prove two critical dates of invention as required by the Court. Harvard moved for

summary judgment, which was allowed (Invitrogen Corporation v. President and Fellows of

Harvard College, 2008).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea (2013). This case surrounds the

2005 expiration of a 1988 patent protecting the technology produced by Harvard in partnership

with E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company for transgenic non-human mammals

(OncoMouse). Harvard had wanted to file a Parent Patent in conjunction with their initial

Grandfather Patent. However, specific claims were rejected in the Parent Patent as these were

already covered by the Grandfather Parent (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea,

2013). So, Harvard filed a terminal disclaimer in response to the rejection which ultimately set

the patent to expire 17 years later (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea, 2013). In

2010, Harvard argued specific claims should not have been rejected and submitted amendments

to be reexamined (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea, 2013). The USPTO

128

rejected the amendments and declared the patent expired (President and Fellows of Harvard

College v. Rea, 2013). Harvard then asked for summary judgment so that there could be an

expedited resolution and no trial. The acting director of the USPTO, Teresa Rea, also asked for a

summary judgment. The Court found Rea/ USPTO to be entitled to summary judgement and

Harvard’s motion for summary judgment was denied (President and Fellows of Harvard College

v. Rea, 2013).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Lee (2014). Once again, the USPTO was

granted summary judgment instead of Harvard in this appellate case. Because of the Court’s

decision in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea (2013) as discussed above, Harvard

appealed. However, the appellate court affirmed the district’s court decision (President and

Fellows of Harvard College v. Lee, 2014).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Certplex, Limited (2015). Harvard filed

this complaint against Certplex (based in England) alleging copyright infringement when the

defendants illegally accessed, copied, and distributed copyrighted material to compile study

guides for MBA students. Harvard alleged that the material must have been obtained in an

unethical manner since it was not readily available for public viewing (President and Fellows of

Harvard College v. Certplex, Limited, 2015). The Court determined that Harvard could not

prove a devious technique was used to access the material, therefore they moved to dismiss the

claim (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Certplex, Limited, 2015).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore (2016). This case involved the

curator, Steve Elmore, of the Peabody Museum in nearby Peabody, Massachusetts. Harvard

filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims of Elmore regarding his being hired to produce and

publish a book on one of Harvard’s collections at the museum. However, once Harvard

129

reviewed his manuscript, it was declined. Therefore, Elmore decided to publish his manuscript

independently. After doing so, he was sued by Harvard for copyright infringement, breach of

contract, and false designation of origin (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore,

2015). To which, Elmore filed a counterclaim requesting declaratory judgment and alleging

breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with

contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, conversion,

misappropriation of intellectual property, prima facie tort, unjust enrichment, and punitive

damages (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore, 2016). Harvard made a motion

to dismiss all claims except one – declaratory judgment (President and Fellows of Harvard

College v. Elmore, 2016). The Court dismissed Elmore’s counterclaims in part as they relate to

a contract to hire another author, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations,

misappropriation of intellectual property, prima facie tort, unjust enrichment, and punitive

damages relating to these claims (President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore, 2016).

The Court denied the breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, and conversion (President

and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore, 2016).

SiOnyx, LLC and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu

Photonics K.K. (2019). Harvard professor Eric Mazur invented a process to create black silicon

by irradiating a silicon plane with ultra-short laser pulses (SiOnyx, LLC and President and

Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., 2019). The process turns the silicon

black and creates a surface texture resulting in a silicon with electronic properties (SiOnyx, LLC

and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., 2019).

Collaborating with then-graduate student, James Carey, Mazur and Carey researched its

130

properties and studied its possible uses. Their work resulted in several patents. Eventually, the

pair founded SiOnyx to further develop and commercialize the invention through partnerships

with other companies. One of these companies was Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (HPK), which

creates silicon photodetector devices. The relationship, though, produced a legal dispute.

SiOnyx and Harvard claimed (a) breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to specific

confidential information provided to Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (HPK), (b) patent infringement

on similar technology, and (c) correction of inventorship on specific HPK’s patents which were

in dispute (SiOnyx, LLC and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics

K.K., 2019). The Court determined that SiOnyx and Harvard’s motions to compel were denied

with regard to the breach of contract and the unjust enrichment claims (SiOnyx, LLC and

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., 2019). However, the

motion to compel was granted in part as to the patent infringement claim (SiOnyx, LLC and

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., 2019).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Halil Cil (2019). Halil Cil, a Turkish

citizen, used Harvard’s trademarked logo without their permission to market 30 language and

private schools throughout Turkey. The Harvard logo was used on buildings, domain names and

website content, educational materials, and social media accounts (Bossi & Doris, 2019). Each

was an infringement on Harvard’s trademark rights. The infringements were detected by the

Harvard Trademark Program whose sole purpose is to identify Harvard trademark infringement

issues around the world (Bossi & Doris, 2019). Because Halil Cil refused to remedy the issue

once notified by Harvard Turkish attorney, Harvard sued. The objective of forcing Halil Cil to

stop using the logo immediately was met and a Turkish judge awarded Harvard $14,000 (Bossi

& Doris, 2019). Since then, his Turkish schools have been renamed or have gone out of business

131

and Halil Cil’s attempts to trademark Harvard’s logo in Turkey and the United Kingdom of

Great Britain have been denied (Bossi & Doris, 2019). He is now facing over 500 lawsuits from

various institutions over intellectual property infringements (Bossi & Doris, 2019).

Lanier v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Board of Overseers,

The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (2019). This sensitive case involves

the descendants of an enslaved father (Renty) and daughter (Delia) whose photographs were

commissioned by Harvard science professor, Louis Agassiz, in 1850 to prove the biological

inferiority of Black people (Lanier v. Harvard College, et al., 2019). Neither Renty or Delia

were in a position to give permission before being posed and photographed from all sides while

naked. Further, they were not in a position to receive compensation for these demeaning images.

After Agassiz died, the photographs were forgotten until Harvard rediscovered them in storage in

1976, at which point Harvard recognized the images as being the oldest known photographs of

slaves (Lanier v. Harvard College, et al., 2019). As such, Harvard created a publication with

Renty’s image on the cover to sell for $40 (Lanier v. Harvard College, et al., 2019). The images

are also used in PowerPoint presentations and displayed on a large screen to audiences (Lanier v.

Harvard College, et al., 2019). Renty and Delia’s alleged descendants (based on oral stories of

ancestors with the same names and backgrounds) realized their relatives were once again being

exploited for profit and sued (Lanier v. Harvard College, et al., 2019). The family, led by

Tamara Lanier, are suing for compensation for pain and suffering, punitive damages, and to own

the intellectual property rights of the photos and to own the physical photographs, as well (Lanier

v. Harvard College, et al., 2019). The Court dismissed the lawsuit on March 4, 2021. Lanier

will file an appeal.

132

Yale Legal Disputes

Fenn v. Yale University (1983). Faculty researcher, John Fenn, was under the

impression that because Yale University did not pursue a patent on the Mass Spectrometer he

invented, Fenn could patent and license it independently. The significance of this creation

caused Fenn to win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The intellectual property became disputed

when Yale University challenged Fenn and his initial disclosure of the invention (Fenn v. Yale

University, 1983). Yale University argued that had Fenn been fully transparent regarding the

invention’s importance, the institution would have assuredly pursued the patent on it (Fenn v.

Yale University, 1983). Fenn’s perception of Yale University’s intellectual property policy on

patentable works was that he had disclosed everything that was necessary (Fenn v. Yale

University, 1983). To settle the dispute, Yale University tried to mediate the matter with Fenn.

However, Fenn was not amenable to the suggestion, so the case was litigated. The court

disagreed with Fenn’s ownership perceptions and repeatedly ruled in favor of Yale University –

despite a series of appeals by Fenn (Fenn v. Yale University, 1983). A federal judge determined

Fenn had committed civil theft, breached his fiduciary duty, and unjustly profited from his work

(Fenn v. Yale University, 1983). At the time of the ruling, the invention had already amassed

$5,000,000 (Fenn v. Yale University, 1983). Consequently, the newly minted Nobel Laureate,

Fenn, owed Yale over $1,000,000 in licensing damages, attorney’s fees, and the patent rights of

the invention (Fenn v. Yale University, 1983).

Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale University (1987). The use of the Yale name in the

title of a literary publication is what set the initial litigation in motion. Before the trial

commenced, Yale Literary Magazine had applied for the admission of an out of state attorney for

representation pro hac vice (for this occasion) (Black, 2016). The application was denied

133

because it did not establish a good cause (Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale University, 1987). On

appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment (Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale University,

1987). This particular case began at this point with a filed petition for certification to appeal an

Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the trial court’s decision (Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale

University, 1987). The appeal was granted, but only as it pertains to the issue of the magazine’s

wanting pro hac vice representation (Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale University, 1987). This

court considered the Appellate Court’s decision and concluded that denying an out of state

attorney on pro hac vice status was not appealable (Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale University,

1987).

Blassingame ex rel. Blassingame v. Yale University (2004). John W. Blassingame, Jr.

was the administrator of the late Professor John Blassingame’s estate. The decedent was his

father who was employed by Yale as a full professor until dying in 2001. While there in 1976,

Professor Blassingame entered into a written contract with Yale Press to edit “The Frederick

Douglass Papers” and a permission fee provision was included therein (Blassingame v. Yale

University, 2004). In 1979, Blassingame agreed upon a second contract. However, interpreting

the provision required legal intervention to properly determine which party was entitled to said

fees. Using letters between the professor and the Association for the Study of Afro-American

Life and History (ASALH) and witness testimonies, the Court believed Blassingame understood

that his 50% of the permission fees would be donated to ASALH (Blassingame v. Yale

University, 2004). Further, the Court found Blassingame to be a reasonable and accomplished

individual (Blassingame v. Yale University, 2004). As such, if a rational person believed he was

actually owed money, he would not have stayed silent for 22 years (Blassingame v. Yale

University, 2004). He would have spoken up much sooner. Because he did not, this indicated

134

his intent to donate his portion of the royalties for 20+ years (Blassingame v. Yale University,

2004). Therefore, judgment was for Yale.

Blassingame v. Yale University (2007). Three years on, the legal dispute continued

between Blassingame and Yale. The word “you” had been omitted in the contract (Blassingame

v. Yale University, 2007). The Court was asked to interpret whether this was intentional or

accidental (Blassingame v. Yale University, 2007). At which case, the Court decided the word

“you” was left out in error and does not change the meaning of the contract or shed new light on

Blassingame’s intention for his portion of royalties (Blassingame v. Yale University, 2007).

Therefore, judgment was for Yale once again and the case was closed.

Lawton v. Yale University (2007). Yale entered into a contract when they hired a

photographer, Michael Lawton, to take pictures for use in an exhibit. The contract gave the

photographer the rights for the pictures. Even so, Lawton alleged that Yale used his photographs

to create a book for profit. Further, he alleged that when Yale finally returned his transparencies,

many were missing. The Court granted the motion as to the claim of breach of the duty of good

faith and fair dealing (Lawton v. Yale University, 2007). The Court declined to dismiss the

breach of fiduciary duty claim and found that Lawson had alleged that Yale was bailee for hire

because under precedent in Connecticut, bailments involve fiduciary duties (Lawton v. Yale

University, 2007). Therefore, Yale’s motion to strike the breach of fiduciary duty claim was

denied.

Enzo Biochem Incorporated and Yale University v. Applera Corporation (2015).

This appellate case came from a jury’s finding that Applera directly infringed multiple claims of

patent infringement that enabled scientists to detect, monitor, and localize nucleic acids and in so

doing induced their customers to also infringe on the patents ultimately needed to be vacated

135

because the district court erred when it constructed the patent’s claims. They had allowed for

both direct and indirect detection of a claimed compound (Enzo Biochem Incorporated and Yale

University v. Applera Corporation, 2015). This was a mistake as the proper construction of the

claims showed it was a process for indirect detection of the claimed compound (Enzo Biochem

Incorporated and Yale University v. Applera Corporation, 2015). Therefore, the appeals court

reversed the district court’s claim construction, vacated the district court’s infringement finding,

and remanded this case to the district court with instructions to determine, consistent with the

court of appeals’ opinion, as to whether the product infringed upon the nucleic acids process

patent (Enzo Biochem Incorporated and Yale University v. Applera Corporation, 2015).

Notable Case Law

Other noteworthy university legal disputes provide examples of how court opinions in the

midst of eased regulations promoted the income-generating potential of universities holding

patents and copyrights and these institutions’ willingness to litigate to contest or protect

ownership (Rooksby, 2016).

Speck and Gilliland v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc., et al. (1984). After

two faculty members, Nancy A. Speck and D. Gary Gilliland, created sweet acidophilus milk at

North Carolina State University, their perceptions of their institution’s intellectual property

policy, as indicated by the lawsuit they filed, were that the institution owed them 15% of

royalties on all patentable inventions. However, there was a problem. The university

trademarked the invention and licensed it through the Dairy Foundation because it was not

patentable. For trademarking, the university does not typically offer express contracts with

faculty members. Therefore, Speck and Gilliland were essentially left out of the deal, resulting

in zero dollars for their innovative work. It seems, the faculty members did not understand the

136

distinction between trademarkable and patentable innovations and the rules surrounding each.

As North Carolina State University faculty members, they are hired as teachers and researchers.

This means they are hired to invent. Unless there is a policy in place (as is the case with patents)

or a specific trademark contract in place, trademarkable work is owned by the university. The

court affirmed the decision in favor of the university.

University of Pennsylvania v. Kligman v. Johnson and Johnson (1990). The

University of Pennsylvania sued its own faculty member, Albert Kligman, over the intellectual

property ownership rights for the revolutionary discovery of Retin-A, which helps to heal

damaged skin due to acne scars or wrinkles. At the time of Retin-A’s development, Kligman

was collaborating with Johnson and Johnson. Because this supplemental research was

performed on his own time and at his own expense, Kligman perceived that the intellectual

property he developed belonged to him. The University of Pennsylvania disagreed. The

university cited three breaches committed by Kligman. They argued he breached (a) his

employment contract, (b) the university’s conflict-of-interest policy, and (c) their intellectual

property policy. While the university allows faculty members to financially gain from their

innovative work while at the university, there are strict procedural guidelines in place as to how

to disclose private enterprise projects so that the university is given the first opportunity at the

work. In this case, Kligman failed to follow policies in place. Because of this, as the marketer

of Retin-A, Johnson and Johnson was also named in the suit. Ultimately, the case was settled out

of court.

Board of Regents of the State of Florida, Acting by and through the University of

South Florida v. Petr Taborsky (1994). This case involves an undergraduate chemistry

student, Petr Taborsky, who was employed as a research assistant by the University of South

137

Florida. The research was sponsored by a utility company who would hold the rights to what the

research yielded. The research was to develop a less expensive, and more efficient, sewage

treatment system within the guidelines of a university research team. Eventually, the project

closed without anything being produced. Allegedly, Taborsky asked the university research

team if he could continue his work utilizing an alternate method he devised. The research team

disputes that this conversation occurred. Nonetheless, from his solo research, Taborsky had an

important breakthrough. Because this development occurred while researching alone, Taborsky

perceived the intellectual property to belong to him; therefore, he filed for, and was awarded, a

patent. Once the university learned of this, the University of South Florida prosecuted him on

the criminal charge of theft. They argued he had stolen his own notebooks that contained

university owned intellectual property. Becoming the first person ever imprisoned for an

intellectual property crime, Taborsky spent six years in prison. A gubernatorial pardon was

ultimately offered. However, it was contingent upon his giving the patent to the University of

South Florida. Therefore, Taborsky rejected the pardon believing it was more important to stand

on principle rather than to be free. This case illustrates the seriousness of having an accurate

perception of an institution’s intellectual property policy.

Shaw v. Regents of the University of California (1997). The University of California

became engaged in this intellectual property lawsuit in 1997. This time, it was faculty member,

Douglas V. Shaw, who sued the institution. He was hired under a 50:50 royalty share with the

university. During his employment, though, the university updated their intellectual property

policy as it pertains to patents by reducing faculty members’ royalty shares. It went from a flat

50% share to becoming a sliding scale where faculty would receive 50% of the first $100,000,

then 35% of the next $400,000, and then 20% of any net royalties after that.

138

The miscommunication between the university and Shaw occurred when Shaw had

completed his genetic research in developing six new strawberry hybrid strains. The university

applied the updated royalty share to Shaw retroactively citing that it retained the right to

unilaterally change personnel policies at any point. However, it was Shaw’s perception that this

was in breach of the original contract he signed at the time of accepting employment with the

university. Unlike the University of California’s prior lawsuit, this time, there was no

confidential settlement as the university felt confident in its legal standing. Lasting years, the

case ultimately wound its way to the California State Supreme Court. They found that the

intellectual property policy, as it pertains to patents, is an enforceable agreement. Therefore, the

court found that Shaw was entitled to a flat 50% of all royalties resulting from the

commercialization of the six strawberry hybrid strains.

Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2005). Upon his employment,

Mark Holodniy signed Stanford University’s intellectual property policy which required faculty

to assign innovations to the university. During his time at Stanford, Stanford sent him for

additional training at a Roche laboratory. While at Roche, he was required to sign a non-

disclosure agreement that assigned inventions stemming from his work at Roche back to Roche.

Roche is a federally funded laboratory subject to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Apparently,

Holodniy did not perceive the two signed agreements to be in conflict with one another. He

simply signed both agreements because the signatures were asked of him by both Stanford

University and Roche. Using the knowledge that he learned through his research at Roche,

Holodniy developed a diagnostic test to determine if a patient has Human Immunodeficiency

Virus (HIV). He then proceeded to assign the patent for this test to Stanford University.

Learning of the developed test, Roche then used the HIV test without license from Stanford

139

causing the university to sue due to infringement on the patent. The Supreme Court ultimately

found for Roche citing the two contracts are both viable despite the work being federally funded

by the National Institutes of Health. This created a situation where both Roche and Stanford

became equal co-owners of the patents. This unanticipated outcome by Holodniy caused an

enormous loss of royalties for Stanford University. To remedy future cases like this, the court

recommends developing a tighter agreement for patent assignments with faculty that will

expressly override prior agreements for immediate implementation.

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) v. Apple, Inc. (2014). WARF, the

licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin at Madison filed a complaint against Apple

claiming the company had infringed upon their 1998 patent of the speedy “predictor circuit”

which enables processors to perform computer program instructions. It was invented by

computer science professor Gurindar Sohi and three students and commercialized by WARF.

The complaint alleges that Apple used the technology in its A7, A8, and A8X processors found

in the 5S, 6, and 6 Plus iPhones as well as in the tablets iPad Air and iPad mini. Apple, in

response, disputed the allegations and claimed their processor worked differently than the

predictor circuit patented by WARF. In 2015, a federal jury determined Apple had infringed

upon the patent and awarded the university $234 million in damages. Later, a judge included an

additional $272 million in supplementary damages and royalties based on Apple’s continued

infringement through patent’s December expiration date, at which point, a judgment of $506

million was levied against Apple. The corporation, in turn, immediately appealed the decision

with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court, which is a specialized patent court. The

Court determined that based on the “plain and ordinary” meaning of a patent that “no reasonable

juror” could believe Apple infringed it. This interpretation met the standard to overturn a jury

140

ruling. With $506 million at stake, WARF filed an appealed with the Supreme Court claiming

that the Federal Circuit altogether ignored the jury’s patent understanding and asked them to

review the lower court’s decision or at least send the case back to the lower court so that it could

present more compelling evidence. In response, the Supreme Court declined to review the 2018

decision and threw out the $506 million in damages owed by Apple, leaving the university one

half of a billion dollars short of what they believed their innovation’s patent protection was

worth.

Summary

With Harvard and Yale moving into this most recent period, a culmination of events

reached a crescendo, creating the most favorable conditions for intellectual property ownership

in history; and, with this crescendo came discord over dominium - absolute ownership and

control of property – a problem only litigation and legislation can solve. At this point in history,

there is broad acceptance of the intellectual property construct that intangible property can have

inherent and immense property value. However, this also creates conflicts with (a) the original

missions of the institutions changing once again, (b) the balance maintained between intellectual

property ownership and the common good, and (c) for whom formal intellectual property

policies are protecting. Additionally, with American ideals shifting; innovations evolving;

neoliberal economics producing policies promoting deregulation; free-market capitalism;

government spending reduction through privatization and austerity; and, the emergence of

consequential case law and legislation, university-born discoveries, innovations, and creations

were granted a more opportune path forward for greater commercialization potential, requiring

scrutiny of the enormous economic impact of intellectual capital. In Chapter Five, the

conclusion of this historical analysis is presented.

141

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

Overview

Chapter Five will commence with a summary of findings from the historical evidence

that moved Harvard and Yale from former colonial seminaries to commercialized academic

institutions due to their intellectual property activity. The answer to the research question (What

produced intellectual property rights interests and how did these contribute to legislation and

case law that moved Harvard and Yale from former colonial colleges to modern commercialized

enterprises?) is discussed and followed by the study’s interpretations and implications.

Delimitations and limitations will then be shared; and recommendations for future research will

be offered. As with the preceding chapters, the fifth one will conclude with a summary.

Summary of Findings

This historical analysis began with the comprehensive phenomenon of what produced

intellectual property rights interests and how these interacted with and contributed to legislation

and case law moving Harvard and Yale from former colonial colleges to modern commercialized

enterprises. Using the historical record of the founding of both colleges, the adjudicated legal

disputes since their inceptions, and relevant legislation, the phenomenon was examined through a

legal, political, religious, and sociocultural lens. Giving context to this central phenomenon were

five guiding sub-questions. The following is the resolution of each of the questions posited.

Central Research Question

The central research question that guided this historical study was: What produced

intellectual property rights interests and how did these interact with, and contribute to, legislation

and case law moving Harvard and Yale from former colonial colleges to modern commercialized

enterprises?

142

Moving the colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale into the modern commercialized

enterprises seen today were several factors. Before those are summarized, though, the premise

of the question must be addressed. The central research question was asked under the common

perception that Harvard and Yale were once simple, early Christian colleges, tasked with a lofty

purpose. This perception is then contrasted with the state of Harvard and Yale today – decidedly

secular and deliberately wealthy.

From a personal perspective, over the years, I have heard this premise comparing the

Harvard and Yale of then with the Harvard and Yale of now from many Christian university

lecterns and several Protestant church pulpits. This musing of Harvard and Yale’s evolutions is

presented in a way to indicate a downward spiral had occurred - to which audience heads nod

knowingly as if to anticipate and affirm the speaker’s conclusion that the universities simply lost

their ways. This sentiment can then be used as a tale of caution that X Christian university or Y

Protestant church must remain vigilant so that they do not experience a similar fate.

Interestingly, some of these same Christian universities were embroiled in their own moral and

legal crises while contemplating the waywardness of Harvard and Yale. Similarly, some

Protestant churches, while speaking of Harvard and Yale’s ceding to humanistic greed, were

simultaneously preaching the prosperity gospel.

For this study, this comparative account is mentioned to give perspective on the

perception of the study’s premise that Harvard and Yale went from colonial Christian colleges

with Christian missions to secular institutions with a combined net worth of $70 billion.

However, as seen from the evidence, the story is more checkered. When the Puritans left

England, their home nation was relieved. The Puritans had created their own fringe Christian

sect and demonstrated little regard for English law. Bluntly, they were troublemakers. However,

143

while troublemakers, they were acute entrepreneurs. Unlike the illiterate, ill-experienced

Pilgrims, the Puritans had a good business sense and a viable plan. The data reveals that they

saw the colonization of America as a clean slate to create the world in which they wanted to live

– a place where fringe beliefs could become mainstream and those beliefs could be used to

justify all manner of questionable behavior toward those individuals who were deemed inferior

through means of intimidation. It is also verifiable that they viewed the colonization of America

as a lucrative business opportunity. It was from this opportunistic environment that Harvard and

Yale emerged. Therefore, the premise that Harvard and Yale were solely quaint Christian

colleges toiling to do God’s work is now in question. This is an important distinction because

this study reveals that an evolution did not occur, but rather a revelation. In essence, Harvard

and Yale publicly became who they always were.

Regarding the summary of contributing factors that moved Harvard and Yale into

commercialized enterprises, intellectual property interests stemmed from the Puritan interest in

property ownership and its advantages of control. Early on, they were prepared to physically

fight for, or legally fight for, what they wanted and believed to be theirs. Puritans, who were

innovative thinkers by nature, understood the benefits of property ownership at the onset; and,

because they dominated all leadership positions in the colony, they were able to control all early

litigation and legislation – despite being under England’s authority at the time. Once the

American Revolution was won, independence engendered legitimacy and emboldened the idea

of ownership thereby proliferating patent and copyright applications, supportive laws, and legal

remedies for disputed intellectual property claims.

Sub-question one. What motivated intellectual property ownership rights interests at

Harvard and Yale? Coming from the established European mindset of believing there was a

144

rightful and inherent connection between invention and inventor, Harvard and Yale affiliates

embraced this ethos. Once it was evident that private property ownership begat controlling

power over the direction and use of the innovation, interest increased. Adding to this was the

rise of the supreme motivator – money. Financial gain for the inventor, the invention, and the

university, along with the competitive notoriety of intellectual property ownership for the

common good transformed intellectual property into intellectual capital.

Sub-question two. In what ways did these interests interact with legislation? The role of

legislation as a collection of statutory laws enacted by Congress is to provide regulation and

deregulation, authorization, and restrictions for specific areas. Broadly, the rise of intellectual

property ownership is attributed to intellectual property protections provided by law. Narrowly,

intellectual property legislation functions to limit the time and scope of intellectual property

rights. Perhaps the most consequential piece of intellectual property legislation, which further

catapulted Harvard and Yale intellectual property interests, was the Bayh-Dole Act, which

ultimately justified intellectual property ownership. Legislation, such as this, granted innovators

with predictable protections and gave them the critical confidence to continue to create and also

served to address the needs of the American economy. Therefore, legislation, on its face,

generated opportunities for intellectual property ownership. As innovations evolved, so did the

need for evolved laws, which created an intrinsic interdependency upon one another.

Sub-question three. How did these interests contribute to case law? Judicial decisions

that have become common law either through binding precedent or persuasive authority were

examined to discern the ways in which adjudicated Harvard and Yale intellectual property

disputes involving the institutions and/or their partnered corporations have contributed to case

law. With interests driving intellectual property production in a climate ripe for intellectual

145

property ownership, disputes were inevitable. Complicating ownership claims were insufficient

intellectual property policies that were not nuanced enough to address specific situational claims.

The outcome was litigation representing professor and student innovators, the corporate bodies

of the universities, and cooperate sponsors or partners. Suddenly, stakeholders were pitted

against one another and at stake were the claimant’s control of the common good and the

financial rewards that only ownership accords. Therefore, the claimant’s conflicting interests

resulted in lawsuits that ultimately affected case law by expanding it, such as the notorious case

of Fenn v. Yale. These cases served to set precedence for all similar cases that followed; and, for

the purpose of mitigation, they have also demonstrated the need for precise contract drafting to

better address the capacity of intellectual capital.

Sub-question four. To what extent did these interests incentivize Harvard and Yale?

Increasingly, universities are interested in acquiring intellectual property due to the benefits of

potential market value. As evident from the data, there is an ongoing enormous economic

impact associated with the distinction of intellectual property ownership and its potential revenue

stream and control. Hence, incentivized interests were motivated by the monetization of the

intellectual property.

Sub-question five. How did these interests alter both colleges’ original missions of

educating clergy? In 1636, Harvard’s original mission statement declared its purpose was to

instill biblical principles in students so that they would have a lifelong solid foundation in Christ.

By 1710, the first secular president was installed and the mission of the school was redirected.

Three hundred and ten years later, Harvard’s mission statement is centered on academic

citizenship and leadership preparation for a better society. Likewise, Yale no longer mentions

146

God as a focus in its mission. Instead, the mission is targeted on the kind of leaders and citizens

the institution aims to produce.

From the standpoint of this analysis, it would be unwise to assume there are no other

contributing factors beyond intellectual property interests that prompted Harvard and Yale’s

decision to omit God from their mission statements. What is known is that their decision to be

more inclusive to students who do not espouse the Christian faith was a purposeful one. As

such, an argument can be made that being more inclusive is closer to the teachings of Jesus. As

far as being former seminaries, both universities still have Schools of Theology for those who

endeavor to follow God’s calling for a ministerial impact.

Discussion of Interpretations

The findings of this study align with both empirical and theoretical literature. The

interpretation of the relationship between the study’s findings and empirical literature are

discussed through the resolution of three areas: (a) the corroboration of previous research, (b) the

extension on previous research, and (c) the original contribution this study adds to the field.

Likewise, the interpretation of the relationship between the study’s findings and theoretical

literature is discussed through the elucidation of the theories that informed this topic.

Empirical Literature

From empirical literature, the corroborated previous research examined higher education

and intellectual property from divergent perspectives. Few studies provided an in-depth analysis

of how intellectual property intersects with higher education and none follows the evolution of

intellectual property ownership at America’s universities.

As examples, a slew of research involved intellectual property history, laws, and

economics in America and elsewhere. Bugbee (1967) followed the genesis of American patent

147

and copyright law and Khong (2006) scrutinized the historical law and economics of the

(1994) considered copyright law from the perspective of legal practice. Ladas (1975) analyzed

patents, trademarks, and associated rights, and Steiner (1905) focused solely on trade secrets.

Additionally, a study on the economic structure of intellectual property law was conducted by

Landes and Posner (2003). Bracha (2019) outlined a historical account of Anglo-American

intellectual property ownership while Husovec (2016) narrowed in on intellectual property in

The Netherlands and Dumay (2018) probed Australian intellectual property commercialization.

Separately, an abundance of research was conducted on various aspects of higher

education. Some examples include Gutek (1995, 2011), Lucas (2006), and Bastedo et al. (2016)

who were all interested in the historical rise of higher education beginning in Europe and moving

to America. Toutkoushian and Paulsen (2016) examined the economic structure of, and the

government involvement in, the modern university and Foster (1962) delved into the economic

foundation of a single university – Harvard. Finally, there was interest in university human

resources and student affairs and their organizational structure, diversity outreach and training,

staffing needs, and funding (Sandeen & Barr, 2006).

From the few studies that explore the intersection of intellectual property and higher

education, topics surrounded the value of faculty and their innovative works (Hentschke, 2017)

and student intellectual property ownership (Saunders & Lozano, 2018). Rooksby (2014, 2016)

investigated the monetization and management of intellectual property branding; and, Bloch

(2012), Kelin (2011), and Nadelson (2007) tackled the challenges of student and faculty

plagiarism.

148

This study extends upon the previous research with the original inquiry of what

produced intellectual property rights interests and how these interacted with, and contributed to,

legislation and case law that moved Harvard and Yale from former colonial colleges to modern

commercialized enterprises. The findings were gathered from a culmination of empirical

literature that was used to better understand the sociocultural context of the schools as they

moved through inception to the present. This was accomplished by leaning into the research of

others while exploring the physical setting, religious attitudes, social settings, education

pedagogy, economic system, and political ideology through the eyes of the Puritans themselves

through the use of their charters, journals, colonial writings, education materials, and legal

documents (Adams, 1776; Boswell, 1774; Harvard College Laws, 1655; Massachusetts Bay

Colony Charter, 1629; Massachusetts General Court, 1814; C. Mather, 1693, 1702; I. Mather,

1684, 1693; New England’s First Fruits, 1643; Paine, 1776; Records of the Governor and

Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 1853; Sewall, 1700; Winthrop, 1630;

Winthrop et al., 1696).

As the colleges matured and intellectual property interests increased, case law and

legislative law grew and were added to the study to give color to the emerging context. If

intellectual property reflects what a society values, then law reveals the level to which a society

will go to protect it. Therefore, due to this topic and the approach, the study’s findings lead to a

novel contribution to the intersection of intellectual property and higher education.

Theoretical Literature

The substantial theoretical framework for this historical study informed this topic by

aggregating philosophical assumptions that explained or justified intellectual property ownership

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). Principles were utilized from the ethical theories of Kant (1788),

149

Bentham (1842), Mill (1863), Locke (1689), Hegel (1821), and Rawls (1971) and from the social

theories of Bandura (1977) and Unger (1876).

Ethical theories. Informing this study was Kant’s (1788) Categorical Imperative which

advocated for the contemplation of the motivation for an action, rather than its consequence.

Being motivated by the goals of others, rather than self, shows good will. Universities embody

this theory when they declare their motivation for owning intellectual property is for the common

good. Next, Bentham’s (1842) Principle of Utility acknowledged Kant’s (1788) theory but

rejected good will as the motivator of acts and added happiness as the motivator instead.

Bentham (1842) believed that natural rights do not exist and legal rights are only valid if they

make an individual happy. Overlaying this theory on the intellectual property construct, some

believe that rights cannot be attached to intellectual property, while others accept legal rights

supporting intellectual property if the innovation has potentially positive consequences

(Goldstein & Reese, 2008; Khong, 2006). Like Bentham (1842), Mill’s (1863) Utilitarian

Theory is founded on utility, or the principle of happiness. For Mill (1863), justice, rights, and

ethics exist because they are an integral part of human happiness. Ethical conduct within a

parameter of justice and rights can promote a positive climate in which to create.

Hegel (1821) and his theory, Hegelianism, describes a property’s tangible existence

through one of two ways. It has a connection to only one person and is irreplaceable or it is

merely instrumental and can be replaceable if no harm is caused to the property’s owner (Hegel,

1821). According to Hegel (1821), the right to own property is the first expression of freedom.

Hegel’s (1821) theory could be used to justify the right to own intellectual property. Rawls’

(1971) Theory of Justice sought to maintain societal fairness by establishing equal and basic

rights and freedoms and by applying economic justice for all. While a university owning

150

intellectual property is privatization of the property, it has a common good connotation.

Conversely, if it were owned by an individual this may not be the case. Lastly, Locke’s (1689)

Labor Theory of Property is rooted in laws of nature, which inherently gives individuals the right

to appropriate and exercise control over material resources and property (Locke, 1689). Further,

since intellectual property requires physical or intellectual labor to be created, this labor justifies

the creator’s ownership (Locke, 1689; Merges, 2011).

Social theories. Bandura’s (1977) Social Identity Theory asserted that individuals learn

from one another through observation, imitation, and modeling behaviors. Because this

modeling can perpetuate behavior and form a conditioned environment, an individual’s social

identity can influence the perceived cultural or economic value of one’s intellectual property,

thereby controlling its demand for ownership (Bandura, 1977). Unger’s (1976) Critical Social

Theory combined the rule of law with elements from Hegel’s (1821) theory that reality is

capable of being expressed in rational categories. Unger (1976) explored the social paradox of

those who want the benefits of living in a free society but feel oppressed by the established social

structures within it, thereby creating a paradox that ultimately suppresses their pursuit of

freedom. Applying this theory to intellectual property innovations in higher education, inventors

enjoy the freedom to create at universities, but can find the rules surrounding their creations

restrictive, which could then interfere with their ability to create further.

Implications

The implications of this historical study are threefold. Empirically, and from the historic

context, prior research was incomplete; and, this study endeavored to fill this gap in the literature

(Hentschke, 2017; Knight & Lugg, 2017; Rooksby, 2014, 2016; Saunders & Lozano, 2018).

Theoretically, this study allowed for deeper understanding of the context due to its theoretical

151

foundation (Bandura, 1977; Bentham, 1842; Kant, 1788; Unger, 1976). Lastly, from a practical

standpoint, all higher education stakeholders are affected by their university’s intellectual

property decisions (Rodriguez, et al., 2014; Rooksby, 2016).

Empirical

Contributing a qualitative historical analysis that examines the historical record to

ascertain how university intellectual property ownership interests began and how these

contributed to, and interacted with, case law and legislation ultimately giving rise to the

commercialization of collegiate-driven knowledge at the colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale

has empirical implications because it fills a current gap in the literature. The study’s findings

present a novel contribution to the research that lies at the intersecting axis of intellectual

property and higher education. The addition of this study to the literature gives contextual

knowledge to this phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Theoretical

Principles from two prevailing theories, and their related sub-theories, functioned to

navigate this research towards understanding theoretical implications (Tuchman, 2004). While

Unger’s (1976) Critical Social Theory provided the theoretical structure for this historical by

serving as its guiding theory, the works of Kant (1788) and Bentham’s (1842) Ethical Theory, as

well as, Bandura’s (1977) Social Identity Theory laid the theoretical foundation.

Applying these theories allowed for a deeper understanding of the research and

subsequent implications. Further, in historical studies specifically, theory and context are

interdependent, which results in an interpretative framework of constructed reality with

implications in several areas (Gall et al., 2007; Tuchman, 2004). For this study, these

implications include the ability to (a) understand the subject of the theoretical desire for

152

intellectual property ownership more fully, (b) create a basis for developing improved

intellectual property policies based on theory, (c) develop intellectual property ownership

evaluation programs if needed, and (d) devise a tool for implementing future intellectual property

planning (Gall et al., 2007).

Practical

The final implication is practical. Every university stakeholder is impacted by the

university’s intellectual property issues and interactions - from the federal and state governments

who provide funding for projects and set regulations surrounding ownership to each university’s

corporate body, the board of trustees. Also affected are the administration, faculty, staff,

students, parents, alumni, and community members (Rodriguez, et al,, 2014; Rooksby, 2016).

When intellectual property lawsuits are won, most university stakeholders stand to

benefit. The university creates another revenue stream, annual budgets are padded, employment

and activities are secured, tuition is stable, and innovators hold a percentage of the profits

(Hentschke, 2017; Secundo et al., 2018). However, not all intellectual property results in

prosperity. When intellectual property lawsuits are lost and claims denied, a clear understanding

of the practical implications of university intellectual property interests is needed. If

stakeholders are unable to engage in projected perspective, which is a necessary process for

predicting outcomes, the effects can leave stakeholders unprepared and even vulnerable. For the

university, not only are there substantial ongoing losses stemming from not owning the

intellectual property license and benefitting from royalties, but there are also litigation expenses

– not just for the university’s counsel, but often for the opponent’s counsel, as well. Tacked onto

the fees for legal representation, there are court fees. Similarly, for the innovators, the loss of

royalties also means the loss of their lawsuit. For most of these individuals, paying for litigation

153

expenses without an intellectual property award or settlement is difficult. Finally, and perhaps

most importantly, there is a community impact, as well. Ownership affects the use of the

intellectual property, which may be irrevocably compromised if the intellectual property benefit

is lost (Rooksby, 2016).

Delimitations and Limitations

The purpose of this historical study was to describe how university intellectual property

ownership interests began and how these contributed to, and interacted with, case law and

legislation eventually giving rise to the commercialization of collegiate-driven knowledge at the

colonial colleges of Harvard and Yale. Theory underpinned the analysis and seminal legal cases,

intellectual property legislation, and a plethora of primary and secondary sources were used to

provide a foundation for an ideological and cultural study of intellectual property rights at the

two institutions. The delimitations and limitations affecting this study follow.

Delimitations

There are three intentional decisions that were made to define the boundaries of this

study. The first includes the determination that only two colonial colleges would be examined

despite there being others. As indicated, Harvard was the first to be founded; however, between

the bookends of Harvard and Yale was a second colonial college, The College of William and

Mary in Virginia. This institution was eliminated for this study because (a) it does not have a

shared history with either Harvard and Yale and (b) it does not have the endowment or

commercialized intellectual property success of either subject institution.

The second delimitation is concerned with the remainder of the colonial colleges. These

were rejected because (a) analyzing only two institutions would enable the analysis to be narrow

and deep which defines qualitative research and (b) the founding dates of the other colonial

154

colleges are more than 100 years later than Harvard, which draws their inception too close to the

American Revolution and leaves too little to investigate from the colonial period.

The final delimitation was made with regard to the kinds of intellectual property that

would be examined. Universities are owners of other valuable intellectual property that was not

mentioned. Both Harvard and Yale have immense collections in their fine arts museums, science

and nature museums, and history and culture museums. These museums display or archive

priceless original works of art, ancient artifacts, rare books (i.e., there is a Gutenberg Bible

preserved at Yale), early musical instruments, and living collections. In toto, between the two

universities, there are 23 museums (Museums, 2021; Museums & Galleries, 2021). Some of

these intellectual property pieces have been the subject of ownership disputes and interacted with

international law due to questionable provenance. Because of the extensive nature of this topic

and the fact that it could comprise its own study, this kind of intellectual property was omitted.

In sum, this study focused on intellectual property developed on campus, rather than all of the

intellectual property housed on campus.

Limitations

There are two potential weaknesses of this historical study. The first stems from the

sample used. In contrast to the delimitation reasoning outlined above, using only two

universities for this analysis may limit the findings of this study.

The second limitation relates to applying modern perspectives on historical events.

Undoubtedly, as a contemporary researcher, and observer of historical accounts contained within

primary sources, a bias will emerge. Potentially complicating this further, is the bias that was

present by the first-hand accounts from the authors themselves. When aggregating the Puritans’

ideological, sociocultural, political, and religious attitudes, primary sources are a vital

155

component for understanding context. From this data, it is evident that Puritans were proud of

the accomplishments that posterity now judges. For example, the Puritans may not have

imagined a world where their behavior of establishing a college illegally, skewing biblical

principles for personal gain to maintain control, mistreating Indigenous people, buying and

selling Black people, and allowing superstitions to justify laws and punishments would ever be

met with disapproval. Regarding these specific issues, the primary-source accounts seem nearly

boastful as if future readers would find them impressive. Whether these accounts were

exaggerated could affect the ideological and sociocultural background of the study, which in

turn, could limit the findings.

Recommendations for Future Research

Considering the study’s findings, and the delimitations and limitations placed on the

study, there are three recommendations for further research. The first involves using the

intellectual property discussed in the “Delimitations” section above. Because large research

universities operate multiple museums containing vast collections, ownership of certain

intellectual property pieces may come into question due to incomplete or forged provenances.

The paths for research exploration could include (a) the interactions between American

university and international law for dispute resolutions, (b) the decisions that are made as to

which intellectual property is displayed for the benefit of society and which is archived, or (c)

the ethics of the university’s ability to properly preserve pieces contrasted with the obligation to

return them to their rightful owners where they may not be cared for as well. Regardless of the

path taken, historical analysis of the rise of this kind of university-held intellectual property

would surely yield intriguing findings.

156

A second recommendation involves a phenomenological study to probe if

commercializing knowledge by reaping the financial rewards from the pursuit of intellectual

property ownership changes the mission of universities. For example, one could research

whether the government should reclassify the taxation status of these universities from non-profit

to for-profit. Currently, the non-profit status is given due to the schools fulfilling the tax

requirement of being a benefit to society. However, the privatization of intellectual property

ownership could be further analyzed to better understand if this benefit justifies the ownership.

This kind of study could enter the intellectual property ethics debate by way of tax law.

The final recommendation is to conduct a quantitative study using the top 50 American

research universities to investigate the level of intellectual property policy understanding at each

school. Because faculty and students are expected to agree with, and abide by, these policies, it

would be interesting to inquire, through an online survey, if participants perceive these policies

to be clear, fair, and capable of mitigating disputes. The survey could also contain contextual

questions that would inquire if participants have engaged in sponsored projects, secured research

funding (from the government or private donors), or currently hold the license of a patent.

Summary

In sum, this historical analysis found that the production of intellectual property

ownership rights that transformed Harvard and Yale’s from colonial colleges to commercialized

enterprises originated from the opportunistic Puritan interest in property ownership and their

keen understanding of the power that ownership affords. For them, ownership was another path

towards colonial dominance, which is evident from their early writings, litigation, and

legislation. Once American independence was secured, legitimacy energized creativity,

innovation, and the idea of ownership as seen through the copious amounts of patent and

157

From these, financial rewards became possible and money further motivated intellectual property

interests turning intellectual property into intellectual capital. Key pieces of legislation further

catapulted intellectual property ownership through the justification of it; and, case law granted

intellectual property rights predictable protections, which encouraged intellectual property

interests further. This culminated into a climate ripe for significant economic impact on Harvard

and Yale as research institutions.

Along their intellectual property ownership journey, both institutions dropped God from

their mission statements. It is not clear from this study if there is a correlation between the two.

What is clear from this historical analysis is that Harvard and Yale’s transition from colonial

Christian college to commercialized enterprises was not due to an evolution, rather it was

revelation. They simply became who they always were.

158

REFERENCES

A Brief History of Copyright in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.copyright.gov/timeline/

Abadi, M., & Palmer, M. (2020). This new variety of apple has a $10 million hype machine

behind it – and farmers are hoping it can save Washington’s apple industry. Retrieved

from https://www.businessinsider.com/cosmic-crisp-apple-farmers-washington-state-

2020-1

Adams, J. (1776). Thoughts on government, applicable to the present state of the American

colonies. Philadelphia: PA. John Dunlap Publishing.

Adams, J. T. (1921). The founding of New England. Boston, MA: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Alexander, K. W., & Alexander, S. K. (2017). Higher education law: Policy and perspectives

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

American Art. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.theartstory.org/definition/american-

art/history-and-concepts/

America’s Story from America’s Library: Mary Kies. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/nation/jb_nation_maryk_1.html

Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England. (1643). Retrieved from

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/art1613.asp

Association of Religion Data Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.thearda.com/timeline/tlMovements.asp

Baker, J. H. (2007). An introduction to English legal history (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

159

Barnes, V. F. (1923). The dominion of New England: A study in British colonial policy. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bastedo, M. N., Altbach, P. G., & Gumport, P. J. (2016). American higher education in the 21st

century: Social, political, and economic challenges (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Bayh-Dole Act (Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act) of 1980.

Beckert, S., & Rockman, S. (Eds.). (2016). Slavery’s capitalism: A new history of American

economic development. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bentham, J. (1842). Auto-icon, or farther uses of the dead to the living. London, England: The

Westminster Review.

Berkin, C., Miller, C., Cherny, R. & Gormly J. (2014). Making America: A history of the United

States (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Berman, H. J. (1983). Law and revolution: The formation of the western legal tradition.

Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Black, H. C. (2016). Black’s law dictionary: Pocket edition (5th ed.). B. A. Garner (Ed.). Saint

Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.

Blassingame v. Yale University, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12534 (2004).

Blassingame v. Yale University, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34144 (2007).

Bloch, J. (2012). Plagiarism, intellectual property, and the teaching L2 writing. Tonawanda,

NY: Multilingual Matters.

Board of Regents of the State of Florida, Acting by and through the University of South Florida

v. Petr Taborsky, 648 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App, 1994).

160

Bossi, A. M., & Doris, A. C. (2019). Harvard wins $14K in trademark dispute with Turkish

schools. Retrieved from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/2/5/harvard-turkey-

lawsuit/

Boston Latin School History. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.bls.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=206116&type=d

Boswell, J. (1774). The decision of the Court of Session upon the question of literary property in

the cause of Hinton against Donaldson (S. Parks, Ed.). The Literary Property Debate Six

Tracts 1764-1774.

Boynton, C. W. (2014). Connecticut witch trials: The first panic in the new world. Charleston,

SC: The History Press.

Bracha, O. (2010). The adventures of the Statute of Anne in the land of unlimited possibilities:

The life of a legal transplant. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25(1), 1427-1474.

Bracha, O. (2019). Owning ideas: The intellectual origins of American intellectual property,

1790-1909. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Breakey, H. (2012). Intellectual liberty: Natural rights and intellectual property (1st ed.).

London, England: Routledge.

Bremer, F. J. (2003). John Winthrop: America’s forgotten founder. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Bremer, F. J. (2009). Puritanism: A very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Brief Timeline of American Literature, Movies, and Music. (2013). Retrieved from

https://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/1890m.html

Brigden, S. (2000). New worlds, lost worlds. London, England: Penguin Books.

161

Brown, E. M. (1999). The extraterritorial reach of trademark law: A review of recent decisions

under the Lanham Act. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law

Journal, (4)3, 863-884.

Buckley, W. F., Jr. (2017) God and man at Yale: The superstitions of academic freedom.

Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.

Bugbee, B. W. (1967). Genesis of American patent and copyright law. Washington, DC: Public

Affairs Press.

Burke, K. (1974). The philosophy of literary form (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Burnham, W. (2016). Introduction to the law and legal system of the United States (6th ed.). St.

Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.

Burrows, L. (2021). Model explains how life may have emerged on Mars. Retrieved from

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/03/new-model-offers-clearer-picture-of-life-

on-mars/

Campbell, P. E. (2019). Reconsidered: Debunking the myth of university inventions. William

and Mary Business Law Review, 11(1), 77-126.

Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? London, England: Penguin.

Chase, C. (1997). The dating of Beowulf. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Clarke, B. (1979). Eccentrically contested concepts. British Journal of Political Science, 9(1),

122-126.

Cochrane, C. N. (1929). Thucydides and the science of history. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

162

Cohen, A. (2016). The role of feelings in Kant’s account of moral education. Journal of

Philosophy of Education, 50(4), 511-523.

Cohen, F. (1935). Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach. Columbia Law Review,

35, 814-817.

Cole, J. Y. (1971). Ainsworth Spofford and the Copyright Law of 1870. The Journal of Library

History (1966-1972), 6(1), 34-40.

Collins, D. M. (2001). The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt. Oxford England: Oxford

University Press.

Collins, H. (1987). Roberto Unger and the critical legal studies movement. Journal of Law and

Society, 14(4), 387-410.

Collins, J. J., Flint, P. W., & VanEpps, C. (Eds.). (2002). The book of Daniel: Composition and

reception (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Brill.

Cortada, J. W. (1998). Rise of the knowledge worker: Knowledge Reader Series, Resources for

the knowledge-based economy (Vol. #8). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Butterworth-

Heinemann.

163

Cremin, L. A. (1970). American education: The colonial experience 1607-1783. New York, NY:

Wiley.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among

five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Dalley, S. (2000). Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the flood, Gilgamesh, and others.

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Dane, N., Prescott, W., & Story, J. (1814). The charters and general laws of the colony and

province of Massachusetts Bay. Boston, MA: T. B. Wait and Company.

Daniels, B. C. (1980). Economic development in colonial and revolutionary Connecticut: An

overview. William and Mary Quarterly, 37(3), 429-450.

Daniels, B. C. (1993). Sober mirth and pleasant poisons: Puritan ambivalence toward leisure and

recreation in colonial New England. American Studies, 34(1), 121-137.

Daniels, B. C. (1995). Puritans at play: Leisure and recreation in colonial New England. New

York, NY: Macmillan.

Darcy v. Allen (1599).

Davenant v. Hurdis (1599).

Davies, M. (2015). Academic freedom: A lawyer’s perspective. Higher Education, 70(6), 987-

1002.

Delcamp, H. (2015). Are patent pools a way to help patent owners enforce their rights?

International Review of Law and Economics, 41, 68-76.

164

DeMar, G. (1995). America’s Christian history: The untold story. Powder Springs, GA:

American Vision.

Demos, J. (1999). A little commonwealth: Family life in Plymouth Colony (2nd ed.). Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press.

Dexter, F. B. (1885a). Biographical sketches of the graduates of Yale College with annals of the

college history (Vols. 1). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Dexter, F. B. (1885b). Biographical sketches of the graduates of Yale College with annals of the

college history (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Dexter, F. B. (Ed.). (1916). Documentary history of Yale University under the original charter of

the Collegiate School of Connecticut, 1701-1745. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (1995).

Donahue, C. (n.d.). The Harvard Law School shield: Royall, Chaucer, and Coke. Retrieved from

https://exhibits.law.harvard.edu/harvard-law-school-shield-royall-chaucer-and-coke

Dumbauld, E. (1968, April). Reviewed work: Genesis of the patent and copyright law. [Review

of the book Genesis of American patent and copyright law, by B. W. Bugbee]. The

American Historical Review, 73(4), 1232-1233.

Education in Massachusetts Bay. (2020). Retrieved from

https://www.founderspatriots.org/articles/mass_education.php

Enzo Biochem Incorporated and Yale University v. Applera Corporation, 80 F.3d 1149 (2015).

Erskine, A. (1995). Culture and power in Ptolemaic Egypt: The museum and library of

Alexandria. Greece and Rome, 42(1), 38-48.

Evans, S. M. (1997). Born for liberty. New York, NY: Free Press.

165

Ewer v. Coxe (1824).

Febvre, L., & Martin, H. (1997). The coming of the book: The impact of printing 1450-1800.

London, England: Verso.

Fenn v. Yale University, 283 F.Supp.2d 615 (D. Conn. 2003).

Fine, T. M (1997). American legal systems: A resource and reference guide. Retrieved from

https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-american-legal-

system.page

Fisch, C. O., Hassel, T. M., Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2015). University patenting: A

comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. Journal of Technology Transfer,

40(2), 318-345.

Fisher, M. (n.d.). The long difficult birthing. Retrieved from

http://www.yalestandard.com/histories/birth-of-yale/

Fisher, W. W., III. (1999). The growth of intellectual property: A history of the ownership of

ideas in the United States. Retrieved from

https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iphistory.pdf

Fogarty, L., Creanza, N., & Feldman, M. W. (2015). Cultural evolutionary perspectives on

creativity and human innovation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(12), 736-754.

Foster, M. S. (1962). Out of smalle beginnings: An economic history of Harvard College in the

Puritan period, 1636 to 1712. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Foster, T. (1999). Deficient husbands: Manhood, sexual incapacity, and male marital sexuality in

seventeenth-century New England. The William and Mary Quarterly, 56(4), 723-744.

Fraser, A. (1979). King Charles II. London, England: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Ltd.

166

Friedman, L. M. (2019). A history of American law (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2010). Applying educational research (6

ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Gallie, W. B. (1956). Art as an essentially contested concept. The Philosophical Quarterly,

6(23), 97-114.

Gardner, C. (2018). The involuntary American: A Scottish prisoner’s journey to the new world.

Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing.

Gatta, J. (2004). Making nature sacred: Literature, religion, and environment in America from

the Puritans to the present. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Gibbons, F. (2011, March 23). Interview with Jean-Luc Godard: Film is over. What to do? The

Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/jul/12/jean-luc-godard-film-

socialisme

Goldstein, P., & Reese, R. A. (2008). Copyright, patent, trademark, and related state doctrines:

Cases and materials on the law of intellectual property (6th ed.). New York, NY:

Foundation Press.

Gutek, G. L. (1995). A history of the western education experience (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL:

Waveland Press, Inc.

Gutek, G. L. (2011). Historical and philosophical foundations of education: A biographical

introduction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Gyles v. Wilcox, Barrow, and Nutt (1740).

167

Harrison, P. (2012). The complicated history of women at Harvard. Retrieved from

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/the-complicated-history-of-women-at-

harvard

Hart, A. B. (1927). Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province, and state. New

York, NY: The States History Company.

Harvard College Laws. (1655). Retrieved from

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1882/6/8/harvard-in-1655-a-manuscript-copy/

Harvard College v. Amory (1830).

The Harvard Crimson (1928). Retrieved from

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1928/11/30/harvard-college-sponsored-first-printing-

press/

Harvard Discoveries and Innovations that Changed the World. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://university-discoveries.com/harvard-university

Harvard Mission Statement. (2013). Retrieved from https://harvard.eagle-

i.net/sweet/provider?uri=http://harvard.eagle-i.net/i/00000131-24b2-8e31-6a45-

990480000000

Hegel, G. W. F. (1821). What is rational is real; And what is real is rational. Berlin, Germany:

University of Berlin.

Hentschke, G. C. (2017). University faculty and the value of their intellectual property:

Comparing IP in teaching and research. New Directions for Higher Education, 177, 77-

91.

How Music Built America. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/how-

music-built-america

168

Hunley, J. D. (1995). The enigma of Robert H. Goddard. Technology and Culture, 36(2), 327-

350.

Husovec, M. (2016). Intellectual property rights and integration by conflict: The past, present,

and future. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 18, 239-269.

Hussain, W. (2018). The common good. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2018.

Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/common-good/

Intellectual Property Policy, Harvard (2019).

Intellectual Property Policy, Yale (2019).

International Copyright Treaty (1891).

Invitrogen Corporation v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 578 F. Supp. 2d 248

(2008).

Ireland, C. (2015). Harvard’s motto, Veritas, has a long, swirling history – including two

centuries of invisibility. Retrieved from

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/05/seal-of-approval/

Jefferson, T. (1903). Report on the policy of securing particular marks to manufacturers by law.

In A. A. Lipscomb & A. E. Bergh (Eds.), The writings of Thomas Jefferson (pp. 156-

157). Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States.

Jones, A. (1900). The life and work of Thomas Dudley, the second governor of Massachusetts.

Charleston, SC: Nabu Press.

Kampelman, M. (1947). The United States and international copyright. The American Journal of

International Law, 41(2), 406-429.

Kant, I. (1788). Critique of practical reason. Königsberg, Prussia. University of Königsberg.

169

Kastenmeier, R. W. (1971). The House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971.

Retrieved from

https://www.ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/lipa/copyrights/The%20Hous

e%20Report%20on%20the%20Sound%20Recording%20Amendment%20of%201971.pd

Kays, J., & Phillips-Ham, A. (2002). Gatorade: The idea that launched an industry. Retrieved

from https://research.ufl.edu/publications/explore/v08n1/gatorade.html

Kelley, B. M. (1974). Yale: A history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kelly, C. (2013). Inventions that will help save the world if we let them. Yale Alumni Magazine.

Retrieved from https://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3664-inventions-that-will-help-

save-the-world-if-we-let-them?page=4

Kelsey, S. (2003). The trial of Charles I. English Historical Review, 118(477), 583-616.

Kenyon, J. P. (1978). Stuart England. London, England: Penguin Books.

King’s Mark Resource Conservation and Development Project, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://ccrpa.org/km/King%27s%20Mark%20Why%20The%20Name%20King%27s%20

Mark.htm

Khong, D. W. K. (2006). The historical law and economics of the first Copyright Act. Erasmus

Law and Economics Review, 2(1), 35-69.

Klein, D. (2011). Why learners choose plagiarism: A review of literature. Interdisciplinary

Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 97-110.

Knight, W., & Lugg, E. T. (2017). A primer on employment and intellectual property law: Legal

guidance for supervisors of assessment and institutional research staff. New Directions

for Institutional Research, 172, 49-60.

170

Knox, B. (1956). The date of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. American Journal of

Philology, 77(2), 133-147.

Kowarski, I. (2020). Ten universities with the biggest endowments. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/10-

universities-with-the-biggest-endowments

Kramer, H., & Sprenger, J. (1486). Malleus maleficarum [Hammer of witches]. Speyer,

Germany: University of Cologne Publishing.

Labaree, B. W. (1979). Colonial Massachusetts: A history. Millwood, NY: KTO Press.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational

goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.

Lacaille, F. (2012). Versailles: 400 years of history. Paris, France: Gallimard.

Ladas, S. P. (1975). Patents, trademarks, and related rights: National and international

protection (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Landers, A. L. (2017). Understanding patent law (3rd ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic

Press.

Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2003). The economic structure of intellectual property law.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lanier v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Board of Overseers, The

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (2019).

Lanham Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act

Lawton v. Yale University, Conn. Super, LEXIS 867 (2007).

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (2011).

171

Lederberg, J., & Tatum, E. L. (1946). Gene recombination in Escherichia coli. Nature,

158(4016), 558.

Letwin, W. L. (1954). The English Common Law concerning monopolies. The University of

Chicago Law Review, 21, 355-385.

Ligertwood, J. (2018). Unger on contemporary styles of legal analysis. The Journal

Jurisprudence, 37, 204-237.

Link, A. N., & Van Hasselt, M. (2019). On the transfer of technology from universities: The

impact of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 on the institutionalization of university research.

European Economic Review, 119, 472-481.

Locke, J. (1689). Second treatise of government. London, England: Awnsham Churchill.

Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Lund, J. M. (2001). Fear of an oath: Piety, hypocrisy, and the dilemma of Puritan identity

(Publication No. 1287) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst].

ScholarWorks at UMass Amherst.

Main, G. L. (2001). Peoples of a spacious land. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mann, B. H. (1987). Neighbors and strangers: Law and community in early Connecticut. Chapel

Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Marshall, P. (2017). Heretics and believers: A history of the English Reformation. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Massachusetts Bay Colony Charter. (1629). Retrieved from

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mass03.asp

172

Massachusetts General Court. (1814). The charters and general laws of the Colony and Province

of Massachusetts Bay: Carefully collected works from the publick records and ancient

printed books. Boston, MA: T. B. Wait and Son Publishing.

Mather, C. (1693). Wonders of the invisible world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Mather, C. (1702). The first book of New-English history. London, England: Bible and Three

Crowns.

Mather, I. (1684). Remarkable providences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Mather, I. (1693). Cases of conscience concerning evil spirits. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard Press.

McCullough, D. (2005). 1776. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

McNally, K. (2017). Patent Success: The 30-year impact of one UVA innovation. Retrieved

from https://news.virginia.edu/content/patent-success-30-year-impact-one-uva-innovation

Merges, R. P. (2011). Justifying intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Middlekauff, R. (1999). The Mathers: Three generations of Puritan intellectuals 1596-1728.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Middlekauff, R. (2005). The glorious cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London, England: Parker, Son, and Bourn.

Mirshmsi, M. H., & Farzi, M. (2018). Analysis and critique on Bayh-Dole Act on intellectual

property rights in publicly funded research. Faṣlnāmah-i Pizhūhish-i Huqūq-i Khuṣūṣī,

7(24), 143-172.

The Mission of Harvard College. (2020). Retrieved from

https://handbook.fas.harvard.edu/book/mission-harvard-college

173

Mission Statement of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://digashkelon.com/mission-statement

Moe, B. (2002). The charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony: A primary source investigation

into the 1629 charter. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing.

Moran, G. F., & Vinovskis, M. A. (1985). The great care of Godly parents: Early childhood in

Puritan New England. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,

50(4/5), 24-37.

Morison, S. E. (1935). The founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Morison, S. E. (1936). Three centuries of Harvard 1636-1936. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Morison, S. E. (2010). A history of the constitution of Massachusetts (1917). Whitefish, MT:

Kessinger Publishing.

Morriss-Kay, G. M. (2010). The evolution of human artistic creativity. Journal of Anatomy,

216(2), 158-176.

Museums. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.harvard.edu/campus/museums/

Museums and Galleries. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.yale.edu/research-

collections/museums-galleries

Nadelson, S. (2007). Academic misconduct by university students: Faculty perceptions and

responses. Plagiary: Cross Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and

Falsification, 2, 67-76.

174

Nargi, L. (2020). Intellectual property and trademark protections for fruit-growing plants are on

the rise – and so are the lawsuits. Retrieved from https://thecounter.org/intellectual-

property-trademark-ip-law-fruit-cosmic-crisp-cotton-candy-grapes/

National Inventors Hall of Fame. (2021). Retrieved from

https://www.invent.org/inductees/search?combine=muhler

National Research Council. (1993). Global dimensions of intellectual property rights in science

and technology. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

Neate, R. (2021). Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin join $100bn club. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/google-founders-larry-page-and-

sergey-brin-join-100bn-club

New England’s First Fruits. (1643). Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/NewEnglandsFirstFruitsInRespectFirstOfTheCounversionOfSo

Newberry, S. (2007). James Hillier. Physics Today, 60(9), 87.

Newsom, C. A., & Breed, B. W. (2014). Daniel: A commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press.

Nobel Prizes and Laureates. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/

Norberg, A. (2016). Computers and commerce: A study of technology and management at

Eckert-Mauchly Computer Company, Engineering Research Associates, and Remington

Rand, 1947-1957. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nutton, V. (1973). The chronology of Galen’s early career. Classical Quarterly, 23(1), 158-171.

Nye, E. (2021). Pounds sterling to dollars: Historical conversion of currency. Retrieved from

https://www.uwyo.edu/numimage/currency.htm

175

O’Malley, C. D. (1945). Jacopo Aconcio: His life, thought, and influence. Redwood City, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Oren, D. (1979). Stamp of approval. Retrieved from

http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/01_03/seal.html

Paine, T. (1776). Common sense. Philadelphia, PA: Bradford Brothers Publishing.

Patent Act (1793).

Patent Act (1836).

Patent Act (1952).

Patry, W. F. (1994). Copyright law and practice (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Patterson, L. R. (1968). Copyright in historical perspective. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Pearsall, D. A. (1992). The life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A critical biography. Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.

Penalty for Keeping Christmas. (1659).

Pestana, C. G. (1983). The city upon a hill under siege: The Puritan perception of the Quaker

threat to Massachusetts Bay, 1656-1661. The New England Quarterly, 56(3), 323-353.

Pfisterer, U. (2018). The Sistine Chapel: Paradise in Rome. Los Angeles, CA: Getty

Publications.

Pickering, O. (Ed.). (1831). Harvard College and Massachusetts General v. Francis Amory:

Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

(Vol. 9). Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, Little, Wilkins Publishing.

Pierce v. Cambridge, 56 Mass. 611 (1849).

176

Plato (2003). The republic (D. Lee, Trans.). London, England: Penguin Classics. (Original work

published ca. 375 BCE).

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Pohl, F. K. (2002). Framing America: A social history of American art. New York, NY: Thames

and Hudson.

Prager, F. (1961). Historic background and foundation of American patent law. The American

Journal of Legal History, 5(4), 309-325.

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Board of Aldermen of City of Boston, 104 Mass.

470. (1870). https://cite.case.law/mass/104/470/

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Certplex, Limited, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176797

(2015).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178092 (2015).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Elmore, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (2016).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Halil Cil (2019).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Bioscience, Incorporated, 204 F. Supp. 2d

134 (2002).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Lee, 589 Fed. Appx. 982 (2014).

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Rea, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68789 (2013).

Puente v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 149 F. Supp. 33 (D. Mass, 1957).

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/149/33/1893731/

Rawls, J. (1971). Theory of justice (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

177

Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, Volume I.

(1853). Retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno01mass/page/184/mode/2up?q=schoale+or+c

olledge

Rexine, J. E. (1977). The Boston Latin School curriculum in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries: A bicentennial review. The Classical Journal, 72(3), 261-266.

Rodriguez, J. E., Greer, K., & Shipman, B. (2014). Copyright and you: Copyright instruction for

college students in the digital age. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 486-491.

Rooksby, J. H. (2014). University TM: Trademark rights accretion in higher education. Harvard

Journal of Law and Technology, 27(2), 349-419.

Rooksby, J. H. (2016). The branding of the American mind: How universities capture, manage,

and monetize intellectual property and why it matters. Baltimore: MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Rosenthal, B. (1973). Puritan conscience and New England slavery. The New England

Quarterly, 46(1), 62-81.

Rosenthal, B. (Ed.). (2009). Records of the Salem witch-hunt. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Sandeen, A. &, Barr, M. J. (2006). Critical issues for student affairs: Challenges and

opportunities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sandeen, S. K. (2010). The evolution of trade secret law and why courts commit error when they

do not follow the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Hamlin Law Review (33), 493-543.

178

Saunders, K. M., & Lozano, M. A. (2018). More than an academic question: Defining student

ownership of intellectual property rights. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and

Entertainment Law Journal, 28(2), 175-232.

Scarisbrick, J. J. (1997). Henry VIII (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schiff, J. (2020). Resources on Yale history: A brief history of Yale. Retrieved from

https://guides.library.yale.edu/yalehistory

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

Secundo, G., Lombardi, R., & Dumay, J. (2018). Intellectual capital in education. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 19(1), 2-9.

Sewall, S. (1700). The selling of Joseph: A memorial. Boston, MA: Bartholomew Green and

John Allen Publishing.

Shakespeare, W. (2000). The tempest: Third series. A. Vaughn, & V. Vaughn (Eds.). New York,

NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

Sharratt, M. (2008). Galileo: Decisive innovator. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Shaw v. Regents of the University of California, 58 Cal. App. 4th 44 (1997).

Siliezar, J. (2021). Archaeologists dig into fossilized dental plaque for clues to ancient trade.

Retrieved from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/03/ancient-tooth-tarter-

provides-glimpse-into-early-trade-and-menu-items/

Simmons v. California Institute of Technology, 34 Cal.2d 264 (1949).

SiOnyx, LLC and President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Hamamatsu Photonics, K.K.,

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140429 (2019).

179

Sneiderman, P. (2014). JHU students develop treatment that could prevent fatal blood loss in

wounded soldiers. Retrieved from https://hub.jhu.edu/2014/07/11/wounded-soldiers-

foam/

Sound Recordings Act (1971).

Speck and Gilliland v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc., The Board of Governors of the

University of North Carolina, The Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University,

a constituent institution, and the Acting Chancellor of North Carolina State University,

311 N.C. 679, 319 S.E.2d 139 (1984).

Spurr, J. (1998). English Puritanism, 1603-1689: Social history in perspective. London, England:

Palgrave MacMillan.

Stanford University v. Roche, 131 S. Ct. 2188 (U.S. 2011).

Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property. (2021). Retrieved from

https://otd.harvard.edu/faculty-inventors/resources/policies-and-procedures/statement-of-

policy-in-regard-to-intellectual-property/

Statute of Monopolies (1624).

Steiner, B. C. (1905). Trade secrets. The Yale Law Journal 14(7), 374-379.

Stephan, P. (2015). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stiles, H. R., & Aurand, A. M., Jr. (1928). Bundling and more about bundling. Harrisburg, PA:

The Aurand Press.

Stoebuck, W. B. (1968). Reception of English Common Law in the American colonies. William

& Mary Law Review, 10(2), 393-426.

SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University. (2021). Retrieved from

https://www.downstate.edu/communications/pressroom/raymond-damadian.html

180

Swanson, J. (1991). David Bushnell and his Turtle: The story of America’s first submarine. New

York, NY: Atheneum.

Swedin, E. G., & Ferro, D. L. (2007). Computers: The life story of a technology. Baltimore, MD:

John Hopkins University Press.

Tan, S. Y., & Ponstein, N. (2019). Jonas Salk: A vaccine against polio. Singapore Medical

Journal, 60(1), 9-10.

Taylor, J. M (1908). The witchcraft delusion in colonial Connecticut, 1647-1697. H. R. Stiles

(Ed.). New York, NY: The Grafton Press.

Title 17 of the United States Code (2016).

Tomkowicz, R. (2012). Intellectual property overlaps: Theory, Strategies, and Solutions.

London, England: Routledge.

Toutkoushian, R. K., & Paulsen, M. B. (2016). Economics of higher education: Background,

concepts and applications. New York, NY: Springer.

Tuchman, H. C. (2004). The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. M. S. Lewis-

Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Unger, R. M. (1976). Law in modern society: Toward a criticism of social theory. New York,

NY: Free Press.

United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation, 289 U.S. 178 (1933).

University of Georgia’s Special Collections Library. (n.d.) Retrieved from

https://digilab.libs.uga.edu/scl/exhibits/show/steel_vintage_mics/mic_early_history

University of Oxford introduction and history. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/history

University of Pennsylvania v. Kligman v. Johnson and Johnson, 493 U.S. 182 (1990).

181

Valeri, M. (2010). Heavenly merchandize: How religion shaped commerce in Puritan America.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wagner, D. O. (1937). The Common Law and free enterprise: An early case of Monopoly. The

Economic History Review, 7(2), 217-220.

Wallace, D. D., Jr. (2004). Puritans and predestination: Grace in English Protestant theology,

1525-1695. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.

Wallenfeldt, J. (2020). Massachusetts Bay Colony. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/place/Massachusetts-Bay-Colony

Warren, W. (2016). New England bound: Slavery and colonization in early America. New York,

NY: Liveright Publishing.

White, L. (1967). Jacopo Aconcio as an engineer. The American Historical Review, 72(2), 425-

444.

White, M. (1998). Isaac Newton: The last sorcerer. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Williams, R. C. (2007). The historian’s toolbox: A student’s guide to the theory and craft of

history (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Winthrop, J. (1630). A modell of Christian charity. Retrieved from

https://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html

Winthrop, J. (1997). The journal of John Winthrop, 1630-1649. R. S. Dunn & L. Yeandle (Eds.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winthrop, J., Dudley, T., Allin, J., Shepard, T., & Cotton, J. (1696). Massachusetts: The first

planters of New-England, the end and manner of their coming thither, and abode there:

In several epistles. J. Scottow (Ed.). Boston, MA: Green and Allen Publishing.

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) v. Apple, Inc. (2018).

182

Women at Yale. (2019). Retrieved from https://celebratewomen.yale.edu/50th-anniversary

The World Book of Encyclopedia. (1993). Birthdays. In The World Book Encyclopedia Volume 3

(p. 416). World Book, Incorporated.

World Intellectual Property Organization/ WIPO. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

Yale Discoveries and Innovations that Changed the World. (n.d.). Retrieved from Retrieved from

http://university-discoveries.com/yale-university

Yale Literary Magazine v. Yale University, 202 Conn. 672 (1987).

Yale Mission Statement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.yale.edu/about-yale/mission-

statement

Yale Office of Cooperative Research. (2021). Retrieved from https://ocr.yale.edu/about-office-

cooperative-research

Yale University Press v. Row, Peterson, and Company, 40F.2d 290 (1930).

Yale University v. Benneson, 147 Conn. 254 (1960).

Yale University v. City of New Haven, 169 Conn. 454 (1975).

Yale University v. Town and City of New Haven, 17 Conn. Supp. 166 (1950).

Yannielli, J. (2014). Elihu Yale was a slave trader. Retrieved from

http://digitalhistories.yctl.org/2014/11/01/elihu-yale-was-a-slave-trader/

Yu, P. K. (2007). Intellectual property and information wealth: Copyright and related rights.

Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

183

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Exhibit A was executed by the plaintiff and signed by Dr. Clark as "Witness" on

February 21, 1940. It reads in material part as follows: "In consideration of my employment by

the California Institute of Technology I agree that as to my inventions ... I will not grant any

licenses to make, use or sell apparatus or methods embodying any of said inventions unless such

licenses are approved by the ... Institute ... The royalty on said inventions shall be paid to the ...

Institute ..., unless at my option I shall request ... that up to and including forty per cent (40%) of

the total royalty paid by any licensee shall be paid to me ... I agree not to grant any license or

make any assignment of said inventions or patent rights thereto without the express consent of

the ... Institute."

184

Appendix B

Exhibit B is dated March 13, 1940, and reads in material part as follows: "Agreement ...

between ... 'Simmons' and 'Baldwin.' This agreement is subject to the approval of the ...

'Institute.'

"Whereas, Simmons has made certain inventions ... Baldwin is desirous of obtaining an

exclusive license to make or have made for use and/or sale apparatus embodying said inventions.

"Now, Therefore, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable

consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

"1. Simmons hereby grants to Baldwin an exclusive license ... subject, however, to the following

reservations: ... [The Institute, Simmons, and Dr. Clark are each] licensed to make and use for his

own use apparatus embodying said inventions ... The sponsors of Impact Research [commercial

firms which paid for the research project wherein the inventions were made] ... are licensed to

make and use for their own research and testing only, apparatus embodying said inventions ...

Gottfried Datwyler [who worked with Dr. Clark and plaintiff in Impact Research] may be

granted a non-exclusive license for the country of Switzerland ...

"2. Baldwin agrees at its own expense and without recourse whatsoever to Simmons or to the

Institute to ... prosecute an application ... for United States Letters Patent on said inventions and

to pay all fees in connection therewith. Baldwin shall have full control of the prosecution of such

applications. Baldwin agrees not to permit any patentable item contained in the said application

... to be lost by abandonment ...

"3. Baldwin agrees to prosecute or settle any interference or infringement matter ... without

recourse to Simmons or the Institute ...

185

"4. Baldwin agrees to pay a royalty of five per cent ... to the Institute, unless Simmons at his

option shall request ... that any portion up to and including forty per cent (40%) of said royalty

shall be paid to him by Baldwin ...

"Edward E. Simmons, Jr.

"The Baldwin Locomotive Works

"By ____________________

Vice-President

"The granting of the foregoing license is approved by the California Institute of Technology in

accordance with an agreement between Edward E. Simmons, Jr., and the California Institute of

Technology dated February 21, 1940.

"California Institute of Technology

"By: A. C. Balch

Pres.

[There seems to be no evidence that Baldwin, through its officers, signed Exhibit B; this has not

been mentioned by the parties to this action.]"