ULivE reports
I am following up on the curious case of ULive Enterprises which, in May 2007, was on the verge of a stock market floation at a capitalization of £70million.[1]
This floatation did not go ahead due to lack of market interest.[2] Some would argue that this was evidence of a predominance of unrealistic expectations on the matter.
However, I note that in paragraph 26 of Council minutes dated 12 December 2007 it stated:[3]
"That the Planning and Resources Committee had received a detailed report indicating that, primarily due to difficult market conditions, the proposed flotation of ULivE Enterprises on the Alternative Investment Market had not gone ahead but the rationale underlying that proposal remained sound and that an alternative strategy was, therefore, required in order to better exploit intellectual property generated within the University."
And in paragraph 8 of Council minutes dated 9 November 2009, it is reported that:[4]
"concerns had been raised about the University’s knowledge exchange (KE) activities following a report to Council, in June, ... [which] implied that there was a greater problem with KE than was actually the case...
"The report gave rise to a number of challenges and opportunities for the University in respect of KE which included the following: ...
* ULivE"
Two years later in paragraph 5.2 of Council minutes dated 12 January 2011, it is stated that:[5]
"Council RECEIVED a report outlining the arrangements for the wind down of ULiVE and proposing a new model of management and commercialisation of IP."
And finally in paragraph 92 of the Senate minutes dated 8 June 2011 we read:[6]
"The Senate received a report on the winding-up of ULIVE and the introduction of a new IP Model"
Please my I be sent copies of:
(A) The detailed report received by the Planning and Resources Committee, as mentioned in Council minutes of 12 December 2007
(B) The report mentioned in Council minutes of 9 November 2009 giving rise to the challenges relating to ULivE
(C) The report on the wind-down of ULiVE received by the Council as indicated in its 12 January 2011 minutes.
(D) The report received by the Senate on the winding-up of ULIVE mentioned in its minutes of 8 June 2011.
My interest is in finding out whether there is any evidence of assessments, reappraisals or lessons learned regarding the underlying policy relating to the process of IP exploitation for profitable gain, and if matters concerning potential conflicts between the policy and the normal conduct of a public research establishment are routinely aired.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...
[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0cfced06-20f5-...
[3] https://www.liv.ac.uk/commsec/minutes/mi...
[4] https://www.liv.ac.uk/commsec/minutes/mi...
[5] https://www.liv.ac.uk/commsec/minutes/mi...
[6] https://www.liv.ac.uk/commsec/minutes/se...
Yours faithfully,
Julian Todd
Dear Mr. Todd,
Thank you for your email of 3^rd November 2011 requesting information
about ULive Enterprises. I am writing to let you know that we have
received your request and will process it as soon as possible, and in any
case within 20 working days of the day we received the request. You will
hear back from us by 1^st December 2011 at the latest.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Lesley Jackson
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
The University of Liverpool
The Foundation Building
765 Brownlow Hill
Liverpool L69 7ZX
Fax: 0151 794 3272
FOI/LJ
1st December 2011
Mr. Julian Todd
Via email to [FOI #92100 email]
Dear Mr. Todd,
Thank you for your email of 3rd November 2011 requesting copies of reports received by the Planning & Resources Committee, Council and Senate concerning ULive Enterprises.
Although the University holds the information you requested, it will not supply it to you because this information is exempt under Section 41 (information provided in confidence) and Section 43 (commercial interest) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and is therefore being withheld.
Section 41 of the FOIA allows information to be withheld if the information requested was provided in confidence. In accordance with this exemption the reports to Planning & Resources Committee, as mentioned in Council minutes of 12th December 2007, the report mentioned in Council minutes of 9th November 2009 and the report on the wind-down of ULiVE received by Council as indicated in its 12th January 2011 minutes will not be disclosed on the basis that disclosing this information would be an actionable breach of confidence. The operation and subsequent winding up of ULiVE involved contractual confidentiality obligations that could be breached if the requested information is disclosed.
The University believes that the requested information concerning ULiVE Enterprises is exempt from disclosure in accordance with Section 43 of the FOIA on the basis that disclosure could potentially prejudice the commercial interests of the University and other third parties involved in ULiVE including its commercial partners.
Therefore, after careful consideration, it is felt that disclosure of the information could adversely affect the ability of the University to exploit its intellectual property and disclosure could cause the commercial partners reputational damage.
We have carefully considered the public interest and, on balance, our view is that the potential prejudice caused by disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
If you are not satisfied with the University’s response to your request you may ask the University to review the response. If you wish to do this please write to Mr. Michael Thorne, Solicitor, Legal, Risk & Compliance, The University of Liverpool, The Foundation Building, 765 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 7ZX, enclosing a copy of your original request and explaining your complaint. Please include an address for correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley Jackson
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
Dear Lesley Jackson,
Thank you for your letter of refusal on 1 December to my FOI request of 3rd of November for four documents commissioned and held by the University of Liverpool detailing the concerns and ultimate winding up of its wholly owned subsidiary, ULiVE Enterprises, on the basis that disclosing this information would be "an actionable breach of confidence" or would breach "contractual confidentiality obligations".
With reference to this refusal, I would be very interested in receiving details as to:
(A) What person or public authority would take action under Section 41(1)(b) were this information to be disclosed, and
(B) The titles and copies of the contracts in which the said confidentiality obligations were agreed.
Please consider this request as a new FOI request in its own right.
With regards to the refusal of my original request, please pass it on to the person who handles internal reviews, as I believe I am entitled to copies of these documents, from which you can redact the actually exempt information.
Although I do not need to provide any reasons for my request, I feel it will assist in the satisfaction of my request if I explain that my interest is based on a paper I saw delivered at the BA Festival of Science at Liverpool in 2008 titled:
"Innovation Policy as Cargo Cult: Myth and Reality in Knowledge-led Productivity Growth (Alan Hughes 2007)"
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cbr/cbrwps/wp34...
In the introduction, the author states:
"There is in my view a danger today that the evolution of innovation policy structures based on copying perceived cultural characterstics and structures of the US innovation system will also fail to deliver the goods... The key "ritual" structures are... an emphasis upon commercialisation of science through university based spinouts and licensing routes..."
I am therefore hoping to receive sufficient information to indicate whether the innovation policy structures (embodied in ULiVE for example) was known to have succeeded or failed, the extent to which the outcomes were communicated to the policy makers, and any evidence that something was gained from the experience.
If the disclosure were to indicate that nothing has been learnt from the past experience and that potential lessons have been disregarded, then I do not believe that it is in the balance of the public interest under Section 2(2)(b) to protect the reputation of those concerned from informed criticism and suggestions of improvement.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Todd
Dear Mr. Todd,
Thank you for your email of 2nd December 2011 requesting information about receiving details of documentation related to your FOI request of 3rd November. I am writing to let you know that we have received your request and will process it as soon as possible, and in any case within 20 working days of the day we received the request. You will hear back from us by 4th January 2012 at the latest.
Your request for a review of your 3rd November request will be dealt with as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Lesley Jackson
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
The University of Liverpool
The Foundation Building
765 Brownlow Hill
Liverpool L69 7ZX
Fax: 0151 794 3272
Mrs Lesley Jackson
Freedom of Information
Co-ordinator
The Foundation Building
765 Brownlow Hill
Liverpool
L69 7ZX
F 0151 794 3272
E [University of Liverpool request email]
[1]www.liv.ac.uk
FOI/LJ
4^th January 2012
Mr. Julian Todd,
Via email [2][FOI #92100 email]
Dear Mr. Todd,
Thank you for your email dated 1^st December 2011 requesting further
information in connection with your initial request (set out below) dated
3^rd November.
With reference to this refusal, I would be very interested in receiving
details as to:
(A) What person or public authority would take action under Section
41(1)(b) were this information to be disclosed.
The Commercial Partners who made a significant financial investment in
Ulive could potentially take action for breach of confidence as a result
of disclosure on the basis that the University and the commercial partner
signed up to explicit confidentiality conditions. I am satisfied that the
public interest in disclosure does not outweigh the public interest in
keeping the confidence.
(B) The titles and copies of the contracts in which the said
confidentiality obligations were agreed.
Confidentiality obligations are set out in a variety of Agreements between
Ulive, Commercial Partners and the University. The contracts are exempt
from disclosure in accordance with Section 41 FOIA on the basis that
disclosure would be an actionable breach of contract. The requested
information is also exempt in accordance with section 43 FOIA on the basis
that disclosure could potentially prejudice the commercial interests of
the University and its Commercial Partners.
We have carefully considered the public interest and, on balance, our view
is that the potential prejudice caused by disclosure outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.
If you are not satisfied with the University’s response to your request,
you may ask the University to review it. If you wish to do this, please
write to Mr. Michael Thorne, Solicitor, Legal, Risk & Compliance, The
University of Liverpool, The Foundation Building, 765 Brownlow Hill,
Liverpool, L69 7ZX, enclosing a copy of your original request and
explaining your complaint. Please include an address for correspondence.
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have a
right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-
The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 30 60 60
or 01625 54 57 45
Website: [3]www.ico.gov.uk
Yours sincerely
Lesley Jackson
Freedom of Information Co-ordinator
4th January 2012
Mr. Julian Todd,
Via email [FOI #92100 email]
Dear Mr. Todd,
Thank you for your email of 1st December in which you request a review of your FOI request dated 3rd November and the University of Liverpool’s response dated 1st December, 2011.
I have, as requested carried out a review the University’s original decision and I am satisfied that the original decision was the correct one.
Therefore, although the University holds the information you requested, it will not supply it to you because this information is exempt under Section 41 (information provided in confidence) and Section 43 (commercial interest) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and is therefore being withheld.
Section 41 of the FOIA allows information to be withheld if the information requested was provided in confidence. In accordance with this exemption the reports to Planning & Resources Committee, as mentioned in Council minutes of 12th December 2007, the report mentioned in Council minutes of 9th November 2009 and the report on the wind-down of Ulive received by Council as indicated in its 12th January 2011 minutes will not be disclosed on the basis that disclosing this information would be an actionable breach of confidence. The operation and subsequent winding up of Ulive involved contractual confidentiality obligations that could be breached if the requested information is disclosed.
The University believes that the requested information concerning Ulive Enterprises is exempt from disclosure in accordance with Section 43 of the FOIA on the basis that disclosure could potentially prejudice the commercial interests of the University and other third parties involved in Ulive including its commercial partners.
Having again reviewed the requested documents, my view is that it would not be possible to redact the exempt information as we feel disclosure of the general content of documents is commercially sensitive and could potentially adversely affect the University. You will be aware that, as a result of the new funding arrangements, Universities are now subject to Competition Law and release of the requested information could, we feel, be used by our competitors for commercial advantage at the expense of the University.
I note your interest in this matter and I can assure you that the University has learnt from its past experience with Ulive and this experience influenced our decision to dissolve Ulive and set up a new IP exploitation model.
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:-
The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 30 60 60
or 01625 54 57 45
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Michael Thorne
Solicitor
Dear Michael Thorne,
Thank you for your reply of 4 January 2012 turning down my FOI request for details about the winding up of the wholly-owned (by Liverpool University) ULive Enterprises.
As I feel that the Section 41 (information provided in confidence) and Section 43 (commercial interest) exemptions remain wholly unsubstantiated -- for example by the provision of information as to whom confidentiality has been contractually obliged -- I have passed this request on to the Information Commissioner's Office.
In the meantime, in your letter you have assured me that "the University has learnt from its past experience with Ulive and this experience influenced our decision to dissolve Ulive and set up a new IP exploitation model."
Can you tell me on what basis this assurance is given? (For example, is the evidence of past learning experience to be found within the documents I requested and which you have reviewed.)
Are there any documents available which you can disclose which provide evidence of a critical review of the handling of the Ulive and from which lessons can be seen to have been drawn?
I hope you can forgive me for pressing this matter to the extent that I am capable, but it is my experience that these policies are virtually detached from reality from conception through to completion. As this instance is one where completion has been achieved it is a valuable case.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Todd
ICO Reference: FS50430258
Dear Mr. Todd,
Further to our recent correspondence and following discussions with the
Information Commissioner’s Office, the University has reviewed its
original decision and in the overall circumstances of this case, is
prepared to disclose the requested information.
Accordingly, please see the attached copies of:-
(a) The report received by the Planning & Resources Committee, dated
20^th September 2007
(b) The report to Council dated 4^th November 2009
(c) The Council report on the wind down of ULIVE dated 12^th January
2011. Please note this is the same report received by Senate on the
winding up of ULIVE.
I trust this is acceptable. If you have any further queries on this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Kevan Ryan
Director of Legal, Risk & Compliance
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Julian Todd left an annotation ()
I received a phone call from the ICO yesterday informing me that they had talked over the case with the University of Liverpool and persuaded them that they were likely to lose, so they voluntarily published the information requested. As a result I have confirmed that the complaint could be closed.