He stated that he still does not understand, however, why the question of ownership has to be confounded with commercialization. The opening premise of the document should be that intellectual property belongs with the creator, and that we should go ahead from there. The time allotted for Committee of the Whole having elapsed, on motion by Professor DuBow, seconded by Professor Baines, it was agreed to hear five further speakers presently on the speakers' list, to a maximum of 15 minutes. Professor Wade noted that there seemed to be a consensus that ownership should rest with the inventor and that the ensuing discussion should focus on commercialization. Dean Shaver stated that ownership and commercialization are linked.
Inventors have many rights, but they also have responsibilities.
He noted that to bring the benefit of inventions into people's lives requires commercialization. Scientists do have a moral responsibility to decide what will happen to their inventions. That is when ownership and commercialization meet. He urged that when the policy is being reviewed, this concept be considered. Ms. Mishra noted that it would be nice if each inventor could retain the right to refuse commercialization and that after commercialization, each inventor could retain the right to veto to whom the product could be sold.