How does Intellectual Property play into the work of grad students? Particularly, when should the grad student and their group (professor, other students, etc.) seek out IP rights of their work? It seems to be that it would be nice to give the institution and opportunity to recover some of its investment in the project, but when things like patents are concerned, it complicates the work. For example, when I am no longer just trying to get things done, but now trying to finish work that will be patented, must I start recording every conversation so that who contributes what and therefore what percentage of the patent they will hold is more obvious? Why should my group mates share anything with me at all? Wouldn’t it be in their best interests to keep any ideas to themselves to patent as their own (in conjunction with the institution as necessary) so that they do not have to divide the ownership? Won’t this lead to less openness in research groups and inefficiencies due to record keeping of each persons every contribution? Am I devaluing the importance of IP? Maybe all projects should pay very close attention to precisely who contributed what whether or not there is a patent in question? If there is not patent, then maybe the only outcome can be name recognition or “fame” anyways, and so to receive one’s rightful recognition, their contributions should be meticulously documented? How do I know when I share an idea that the idea is new to the rest of the group? In order for me to get credit for the most ideas should i just spew out unfiltered stream of consciousness brainstorming and basically try to say every possible thing first? Should I write in a similar way publicly rather than speaking it so that my group doesn’t have to hear it all, but at least received notification that i thought of it?

At what point does patenting a work become contrary to the mission of sharing the knowledge that the public enables me to research/find/acquire?