ED

19C

To: CIS Executive Committee Date: October 8, 1981

From: Jim Gibbons

Subject: Draft Statement for CIS Advisory Committee Meeting

Attached is a draft of the CIS Organization and Policy Statementwhich I hope you will read carefully. It has been past Dr. Kennedy once,Gerry Lieberman twice, and the faculty group we chose for commentary. Ienclose copies of specific faculty comments so you can judge them foryourself.

My secretary will call each of you to arrange a meeting to discusswhat I hope will be final changes.

Incidentally, regarding the Goodman memo, I propose to ask John andJim to work with the Lab Directors and someone from CSD to developacceptable criteria.

RECEIV

OCTB.IGtN.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM " STANFORD UNIVERSITY " OFFICE MEMORANDUM " STANFORD UNIVERSITY " OFFICE MEMORANDUM

"Date: September 14, 1981

To James F. GibbonsElectrical Engineering

From Gerald J. LiebermanVice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

c■n■nr,m

5m2C>Zcc2

Draft of the CIS Organization and Policy StatementSubject:

Dear Jim:

As I mentioned to you on the telephone, I find this draft very muchimproved over the previous version. Nevertheless, I still have a fewproblems—some of them exacerbated by my discussion with Al Clogston ofBell Labs. My specific comments are as follows:

Section 1.2: I do not believe that the Executive Committee canappoint "Search Committees for new faculty appointments, on whicha Director will normally serve as Chairman." As you well know,an appointment to the regular faculty is a prerogative of a department.I believe you can achieve what you're looking for but your wordingwill raise a red flag' with the relevant departments. You are betteroff by just deleting this material, and "negotiating" with a departmentwhen the issue arises.

y Section 1.4: Again, my previous comment about appointments isrelevant for appointments of adjunct professors in the CIS, if youare planning to make a joint appointment with a department. Ofcourse, if you are making adjunct professors wholly within the CIS(if and when you get approval to do so) your suggested procedure wouldbe appropriate.

Section 1 1. 3: You indicate that "proposals from any affiliated membersof the Stanford faculty will be welcome"--in reality, I am sure thatyou would consider proposals from any member of the Stanford facultybecause if the proposal was really worthy of funding you would makethem affiliated.

Section 1 1. 5: This paragraph irritated Al Clogston because he feelsthat it implys that non-corporate sponsors will not be permitted tohave scientific visitors at Stanford. He is genuinely concernedabout continuing the scientific collaboration between Stanford andBell Laboratories. I assured him that the relationship betweenindividuals at Stanford and Bell Labs will continue to prosperwhether or not Bell Labs joins since no one can dictate to our facultywho they should interact with professionally. Therefore, I suggestthat this paragraph be beefed up a little to provide assurances thatlegitimate professional interactions will continue.

oT

nm

2m2cJO>ZD

C

S

Section 1V. 3 (b): This must have been a leftover from the firstdraft. The sentence should read, "Lead Time--to facilitate accessof new concepts to sponsor companies."

>Z-no—acz<rr

X;

i/i—:-<

—|

>z-nc3C

C

cz<m:c

H■<

O11

nm

2m2O>zcc2

—I>Z-r.oJB

C

cz<m

GibbonsCIS Organization and Policy Statement DraftSeptember 14, 1981Page 2

Section 1V.3 (c): This should read "...to provide the CIS Directoratewith up-to-date lists of research students (with students' permission)and... ."

Finally, I want to reinforce what you said about the necessity ofgetting legal clearance for many of the things in this document.

Cordially,0 ,

y

cc: D. Kennedy

INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORYf_Department of Electrical EngineeringSTANFORD UNIVERSITY Stanford, CA 94305

JOSEPH W. GOODMANDirector, Information Systems LaboratoryProfessor of Electrical EngineeringDurand Bldg. 127(415) 497-3304

MEMO

To: Prof. James Gibbons

From: J.W. Goodman

Subject: Your Draft CIS Organization and Policy Statement

Date: August 31, 1981

I have read the draft in detail and have only three comments:

1. Under item 111.5, Industrial Affilate Programs, I take this to meanthat a real, honest-to-goodness transfer of $10,000 per CIS sponsorwould occur from the CIS to the affilate program in question. Undersuch a condition, I am sure the ISL would like to have the CISsponsors in their program. However, it might be necessary to limitthe attendance at our annual meeting to two or three representativesfrom each sponsor, a limit we will have to impose on othernon-CIS affiliates as well.

2. There is an implication in item IV. I, which I don't think youintended, that in order to be affiliated, one must have a need forthe facilities. I can see a case of a purely theoretical work inthe area of interest to CIS that might not require the facilities,and yet the CIS might wish to have it affil iated. It might be goodto remove this ambiguity.

3. Lastly, the major omission from item IV in general is that it statesno criteria that will be followed in admitting a faculty member toaffiliation. This is , of course, a question of considerableinterest to the members of the EE Department, and I would feel morecomfortable with this document if that auestion were addressed head-on.

J_

3FFICE MEMORANDUM STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE MEMORANDUM STANFORD UNIVERSITY " OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Date: August 25, 1981

To Jim Gibbons

From Tony Siegman

OTl-nnm

2m2OJO>zoc2

Subject: Center for Integrated Systems Policy Statement

Dear Jim,

CIS must consider, I suggest, more than just the "legal problem" indistinguishing between "facilitated access" to CIS research results for sponsorsas against limited access to the same results for others.

My concerns about this point grow out of my recollections of the debatesa decade ago concerning classified research at Stanford, and the statements aboutthe fundamental openness of university research made at that time by people likeBill Rambo and Hu Heffner. It might be worthwhile to exhume and review theMinutes of some of those debates.

The fundamental viewpoint I carried away from those discussions, and otherssince then, is that the University is a very special kind of institution, whichdraws support from and works for the benefit of all elements of mankind, in a waythat ought to be fundamentally broader than any narrow commercial or even nationalinterest. The University has special freedom and license to pursue "truth" insome absolute sense; and as part of this special status the results of Universityresearch and scholarship are supposed to be fundamentally open to all—a portionof the University simply can't be bought by anyone.

o-n-n

O

m

2m2OX)

>Zoc2

(I recognize that some universities operate differently. Swiss universities,for example, as I understand it routinely perform closed proprietary research forSwiss industry. My impression, however, has always been that it was a fundamentalpart of our ethic not to do that) .

How does this principle apply to something like our existing AffiliatesPrograms? Well, my impression of the underlying principle in our relationshipswith our Affiliate companies was that we didn't give these companies anythingwe wouldn't give to anyone else—they just got all these things without having to

ask for them.

o-n-nnm

2m2oXI>zac2

- 1 -

—i>z

MM

oXacz<mJOw1

-<

H>z-noJOocz<mJolyi

—l-<

H>zoJO

O

cz<mjoLn

-H-<

2

Jim Gibbons August 25, 1981

It seems to me, for example, we'd have an absolute obligation to give anyof the following items to any company who asked for them:

1. Lists of students (after all distribution of the list is supposed to befor the benefit of the students as well as the companies) .

2. Lists of publications (which should be available to absolutely anyonewho asks) .

3. Copies of technical reports and publications (or at least some mechanismwhereby anyone who requests can acquire either a copy, a microfilm, or ajournal citation for any publication).

When it comes to patents, while we attempt to retain for the University thereasonable commercial proceeds that may result from a patentable idea, it seemsto me that both University policy and U.S. law require that the use of a patentableidea be made available, for an appropriate economic return, to anyone who wants touse that patent. As I understand it, we don't sell exclusive licenses to anyone.

Software and "trade secrets" that result from University research effortsare more sticky situations. Nonetheless, it seems to me that these, especiallysoftware, must fall somewhere between publications and patents. That is, if we aregoing to give them to anyone, we have to give them to everyone; whereas if we aregoing to sell them to anyone, then we also have to be willing to sell them, at afair price, to anyone.

In all these cases, the idea of "buying special rights in advance" byproviding research sponsorship, and particularly of buying an exclusive right inadvance by providing research sponsorship, seems to me a proposition that ishighly debatable and very much open to argument. For a sponsor to providerestricted research support for a specific research area, on the proposition thatopen development of that area will be in the national interest or even in thesponsors own commercial interest, is one thing. To provide such support inexpectation of receiving exclusive or private rights to all or any of the fruitsof that research is a much more debatable proposition.

>

3

J*im Gibbons August 25, 1981

Finally, there is the whole question of access to CIS activities for bothstudents and visitors, including industrial visitors, visitors from other universitiesand visitors from overseas, who are not among the members of CIS. The policy

statement is not very explicit or detailed on what CIS will do or will not do inthese situations, and very probably I need have no fear as to how you willoperate. But it does seem to me that if any program on campus were to set up

restrictions under which certain classes of visitors couldn't get in to certainbuildings, or couldn't be admitted to certain seminars, or couldn't read certainreports, or couldn't talk freely with faculty members or graduate students withwhom they had common intellectual interests—then these would really be violentand provocative exceptions to what have been our practices in the past. Suchpractices are of course not at all uncommon in industrial research laboratories,"even the better ones, and I hope that you will not find yourself pressured byyour industrial sponsors to initiate any such policies at Stanford.

c.c. J. LinvillJ. MeindlC. QuateR. White

AES:jcc '\ (fAM

OFFICE MEMORANDUM STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE MEMORANDUM " STANFORD UNIVERSITY " OFFICE MEMORANDUM

DAAjjgust 25, 1981

J. F. GibbonsTo

f

ß

om : J. D. Plummer

o-n-nnm

2m2OJO>zoc2

Subject: Your recent CIS Organization and Policy Statement

Dear Jim:

In response to your recent memo requesting comments on the CISorganization and policies, I would offer the following comments/questions:

1) Overall I think it looks like a reasonable set of policies.

2) In your breakdown of the distribution of sponsors annual fees, thereis no allocation for processing lab maintenance, staff, supplies,etc. Based upon our present IC Lab expenditures, I would guess thatit will cost in the neighborhood of $1 - 2 million per year tosupport this centralized process facility. How is this to be done?Will this be obtained from user's fees? Or will the CIS support thefacility in some other way?

3) I'm a little concerned about how we are going to deal effectively o-nTlnm

2m2OJO>Zoc2

with 16+ full time visiting scientists from the sponsor companies.Such visitors in the past have been hosted by individual Pis andconnected with a specific research program.- I believe that thiswould be the best way to handle visiting people in the future aswell. However, if we do this, shouldn't the individual faculty havesome input on who the visitors are and what role they will play whilehere? Also, can we really effectively handle 16+ people in this way?

4) There is one final question I think needs to be considered, perhapsby those of us in the IC Lab. What will the relationship of thepresently existing IC Lab be to the CIS? To what extent will wemaintain McCullough facilities for teaching and/or non VLSI (i.e.transducers, medical electronics, etc.) research? Since an enormousamount of IC Lab capital equipment will in fact be "donated" to theCIS, will the IC Lab have unrestricted access to the new building andbe free of user's fees etc?

I'd enjoy the opportunity to talk with you about any of these issues atyour convenience.

cc: J. D. Meindl

H>-ncXacz<mXi/i

-H

■<

H>ZtlOJOD

C

Z<mjo1/1

_<

-<

l/lH>zOJO

O

cz<mJO1/1—(

"<

O"n

nm2m2OJO>zac2

To

From

Subject

Date: September 3, 1981

Jim Gibbons

J. Beaudouin

o-n-nnm

2m2OJO>Zoc2

Your CIS Organization and Policy Statement memo dated August 20, 1981

Dear Jim,

I am sorry to be slow to respond to your memo; it is only by accidentthat I had the opportunity to read it.

I would like to make the following references to paragraph 111 andcomment on the budget outlined:

1) I don't see any $ for maintenance. Maintenance will be very expensiveand can be divided into 2 parts:

a) EquipmentHistorically, equipment maintenance has run about 10% of its originalcost. That cost has been difficult to recover and is not easilycharged to a contract. So if we think of having roughly $3000K+ ofcapital equipment that would translate to $300K. o

-n-nnm

2m2OJO>zoc2

b) Bui 1 dinThe building is not an ordinary university structure. It contains alot of specialized equipment such as, a complicated pure waterinstallation, an incomparable submicron air system with tighthumidity and temperature control, a sophisticated neutralizing andwaste water system, water recovery equipment, many vacuum pumps forvarious needs, the list goes on. The costs are not well defined, butI think $300K to $500K is not an exaggerated amount.

2) We should also think about supplies which will easily run another 800K.

To sum it up, I would like to see a maintenance budget of $600K to $800Ka year to start. The success of the CIS may depend on a lot of other factors,but maintenance is going to be an important one.

CC: J. D. Meindl ,J. D. PlummerJ. D. Shott o

-n■n

m

2m2oJO>zc2

J. McVittie

H>zTlo

PCocz<mJoCO—(

-<

COH>zoxacz<mjoCO

-<■<

CO

>zoxacz<mjoVI

—i-<

1

STANFORD UNIVERSITY Stanford, California 94305

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTThomas Kailath

Associate Chairman

Durand Bldg., Room 117 Tel.: (415)

497-3688/4120;

Telex/Twx:910—373-1 162 STNFRD STNUA