"Universities don't understand business..."

You can tell a lot about people by how they conduct negotiations.  Do they really roll up their sleeves and try to craft a win-win scenario for the two parties or do they try to bludgeon the other party into accepting their view of the world?

The bludgeon works fine for buying a car where you're finished with the relationship with the salesperson by the end of the afternoon, but technology licenses are different....they last for about 20 years and involve lots of interaction.  You can't bludgeon people into that type of relationship (at least not in this country)...

Alas, not all people bring such a positive attitude to negotiations.  As a university licensing person, you instantly know you are in for a challenging time the second you hear the words, "Universities just don't understand the needs of business..." or "This is why companies don't like to work with universities..."

These sorts of statements are troubling for a lot of reasons, but the chief one is that it presumes that there is a deal to be had if only the university would stop being so thick-headed.  And there is also an implicit statement that the company's negotiating positions are somehow of more value than the university's negotiating positions because our positions are rooted in stupid academic stuff.

But, here is the thing: There is no obligation for either party to enter into any agreement.
 
In these negotiations, the university has something that the company wants (usually technology and intellectual property) and the company has something the university wants (money and product development/sales).  That is what brings the sides together to negotiate, but that doesn't mean that either party is interested enough to make the other necessary compromises to actually sign the deal. 

Each side will go through it's own internal analysis about what they get from the deal and what they are being asked to give up.  If the balance is positive, you get a deal.  If the balance is at all negative, you get nothing.  That's just how it is.

And, that is why the "universities don't understand business" thing is so counterproductive.  For one thing, if the deal isn't closing, calling names isn't going to help.  Time and energy would be better spent trying to reach compromise so that each side can reach a positive balance in the deal.  

Then there is the value judgment that is implied in such statements.  Why is the the company position assumed to be "right" and the university position assumed to be "wrong"?  That isn't even the right way to look at it.  They're just different positions and if the deal is juicy enough, the parties will agree to compromise.  If the deal is lightweight....the parties don't compromise and that is fine.  Some deals simply aren't worth doing, especially deals that require significant compromise for the company to get a mediocre technology or the university to get a trifling amount of research funding.

The personally annoying thing is to hear the complaint from companies that you know have less deal-making experience than I do.  People like me do LOTS of deals with LOTS of companies in LOTS of different industries.  We're basically the girl in town who gets around a lot.  We may have a hard time looking ourselves in the mirror sometimes, but when you live that life, you DO learn how lots of different companies "like it".  If you're out of step in this business, the world lets you know because you suddenly cannot close deals. 

So, if you fail to close a deal with me and choose to cover your failure by shouting that "universities just don't understand business" you sound like a dude who struck out with the town tramp and then decided to start calling her a lesbian to cover up your lack of deal making skills.  You just look silly.

- Dean Stell