A Google AI and Claude AI - Truth and Ethics Comparison

And also comparing two versions of the University of Maine's Policy on the Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights, sharing the same date.

--capfrank-mckenna unsplash

Yesterday I engaged in a conversation with Google AI about the new “Factory of the Future” being built by the State of Maine at the University of Maine, with public funds for the benefit of the public, by which the state means its “targeted industries”. The Factory of the Future will be used to train “the workforce” of Maine’s centrally managed economy.

In the conversation, I brought up the distribution of cumulative net income from intellectual property, according to the University of Maine Policy on Intellectual Property Rights., quoting on this link, Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights published for many years, in my article How The Morrill Act Gave Birth to Public Ownership of Private Intellectual Property in the USA.

Google AI Responded with this:

Your message describes the proposed (but not implemented) faculty compensation structure for IP at the University of Maine System (UMS), highlights the ongoing labor dispute with the graduate student workers union (UMGWU-UAW) regarding wages, benefits, and potentially IP, and raises a concern about the UMS IP policy's claim to ownership of IP created by "uncompensated individuals" using University resources "more than incidentally." (emphasis mine)

Here's an analysis addressing these points:

1. Faculty compensation agreement

The proposed distribution split for faculty creators/inventors:

• Up to $100,000 net income: 50% to the faculty creator/inventor and 50% to the University.

• Above $100,000 net income: 40% to the faculty creator/inventor and 60% to the University.

This is a specific proposal from February 2, 2002, and it's important to remember that it may not reflect the current, official policy. UMS policies are subject to updates and revisions. To get the most accurate information on current policy regarding faculty IP compensation, it's best to consult the official University of Maine System IP Policy documents directly

Google AI was confusing the document I posted titled Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights with the one it had previously referenced, titled Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights

For your reference, these are the respective web addresses, identifying that the latter web address was uploaded in 2019

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1764&context=univ_publications

https://www.maine.edu/board-of-trustees/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/12/intprop.pdf?0fa197

I had not compared the web addresses at the time, but I pointed out that the document I was quoting from is titled: Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights, and asked AI if that was not the official Statement of Policy, then what was?

Google AI didn’t have an answer and responded evasively in the manner of a polished politician:

1. Policy updates and governing policy

You are correct that if the UMS IP policy is updated, those updates should be reflected in the official document titled "Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights". The reason for referencing the possibility of updates or alternative interpretations stems from the fact that: (emphasis mine)

• Policies can evolve: University policies, especially on complex issues like IP and technology transfer, are subject to change over time through Board of Trustees actions. While the document you cite is the foundational policy, the specific terms, procedures, or interpretations can be adjusted or supplemented by subsequent decisions or related documents.

• Negotiated agreements: The text you quoted about the 50/50 and 40/60 split was explicitly stated as the result of negotiations between AFUM (Associated Faculties of the University of Maine System) and the UMS, intended for inclusion in the 2002 policy but not actually inserted, according to DigitalCommons@UMaine. This indicates that there might be ongoing discussions or alternative compensation structures in practice, even if the primary policy document hasn't been formally amended to reflect every detail.
  
  (Note added by author- This is when I noticed that the 50-50 split in the version that I have been referencing for years was altered to increase wealth distributed to the university and decrease wealth going to faculty creator/inventor as GoogleAI had switched the version I referenced with the one switched out by the Board of Directors.) This as Google AI was telling me that the document I referenced was not officially implemented, while the document it referenced was. However, the document I have been referencing for years was the one that was altered with no notation of an alteration date and then uploaded in 2019. Why would the Board of Trustees alter an unofficial, never-implemented Statement of Policy from 2002?

• The "Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights" is the foundational policy document governing IP at the University of Maine System. It outlines the core principles of ownership, disposition of income, and the roles of various parties like the Intellectual Property Office. To confirm the exact status of the specific clauses (like the faculty profit split), one would need to cross-reference with the most recently approved Board of Trustees policies and any Collective Bargaining Agreements in place for relevant personnel.

The Statement of Policy.

So to make a long story short, Google AI continued like a polished politician defending their policies, and continuing to insist that the document I referenced, which Google AI confused with the document it referenced, was not really an official governing policy, treating the two versions as fundamentally different, so I uploaded both documents to Claude AI and asked:

Can you identify the differences between these two statements?

This is what Claude said:

I can identify several differences between these two University of Maine System intellectual property policy statements:

Key Differences

1. Revenue Distribution Formula (Most Significant Change)

• Document 1: Uses a tiered system:

  • First $100,000: 50% faculty/50% university

  • Over $100,000: 40% faculty/60% university

• Document 2: Uses a flat 50/50 split for all income levels

2. Policy Goals

• Document 1: Lists goal (ii) as protecting "the interests of the people of Maine and those of the University of Maine System"

• Document 2: Lists goal (ii) as protecting "the interests of the people of Maine and the Trustees of University of Maine System"

3. Copyright Definition

• Document 1: Includes "bibliographies" in the list of literary works

• Document 2: Omits "bibliographies" from the same list

4. Trademark Definition

• Document 1: References "it campuses" (appears to be a typo)

• Document 2: Correctly states "its campuses"

5. Student Work Reference

• Document 1: Mentions "audio, video, and multimedia works" for student-created works

• Document 2: References "and articles and audio, video, and multimedia works" (slightly different phrasing)

6. Technical Corrections

• Various minor formatting and punctuation differences throughout

• Some spacing and capitalization variations

The most substantial difference is the revenue sharing structure, where Document 1 reduces faculty share to 40% for higher-earning intellectual property (over $100,000), while Document 2 maintains a consistent 50/50 split regardless of income level. This represents a more faculty-favorable arrangement in Document 2.

Google AI kept insisting that the two versions were fundamentally different.

My conclusion is that the Statement of Policy was altered by the Trustees in 2019 without any official process, which would require identifying the date of the alteration.

Next, I asked Claude:

Who owns the patents for the research, and who is the power elite that makes the decisions for "the public"

Patent Ownership

For research conducted at the University of Maine, patent ownership follows typical public university intellectual property policies. While I found references to the University of Maine System's intellectual property policy (effective since 1986, last revised in 2001), the university system typically owns patents developed by faculty, staff, and students using university resources. The university has an invention disclosure process where researchers must report new inventions which then become university intellectual property. Composites World Features UMaine’s new GEM Building - Maine College of Engineering and Computing - University of Maine,

This means patents from the GEM Building research would likely be owned by the University of Maine System, not individual researchers or private companies, though licensing arrangements could allow commercial entities to use the technology.

Decision-Making "Power Elite"

The governance structure shows a clear chain of political appointment for university decisions:

University of Maine System Board of Trustees: The Board consists of 16 members, 15 of which are appointed by the Governor and approved by the Maine Legislature. The Maine Commissioner of Education serves as a member ex officio. Members are appointed for a five-year term and may be reappointed once Maine State GovernmentMaine MEP.

Recent Appointments: Elise Baldacci, Philip Hussey and William Kemler were nominated by Gov. Janet Mills, reviewed and recommended by the Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs and confirmed by the Maine Senate

This structure means the "power elite" making decisions about public university resources are:

• The Governor (who nominates 15 of 16 board members)

• The Maine Legislature (which approves appointments)

• The appointed trustees themselves (typically business leaders, professionals, and community figures)

So while marketed as serving "the public," the actual decision-making power rests with a relatively small group of politically-appointed individuals who control an $82 million public investment and the resulting intellectual property rights.

Do the board of trustees receive any compensation from intellectual property rights?

No Direct IP Revenue Sharing

There's no evidence in the available materials that trustees receive any direct compensation or revenue sharing from intellectual property rights generated by university research. This would likely violate conflict of interest policies, as the university has conflict of interest policies that apply to "All Officers and Employees" to "ensure continued confidence of the people of Maine in the University and its personnel" Manufacturer Partner Support Services | Maine MEP.

Potential Indirect Benefits

However, your question touches on an important structural issue. While trustees don't receive direct IP compensation, they may benefit indirectly through:

1. Professional Networks: Board service connects them with other business and political leaders

2. Business Opportunities: Access to university research and licensing opportunities through their other business interests

3. Institutional Influence: Control over an $82 million facility and the direction of publicly-funded research

The intellectual property policy I referenced earlier (Section 209, effective 1986, last revised 2001) would govern how IP revenues are handled, but the specific revenue distribution details weren't available in the search results.

So while trustees don't appear to receive direct payments from IP rights, the governance structure does concentrate significant control over publicly-funded research and its commercial applications in the hands of 15 governor-appointed individuals who serve as unpaid "volunteers" but may have other business interests that could indirectly benefit from their board positions.

End of Claude’s response.

The governance structure is the same type of organization that I have been contacting for years, receiving no response, being in the makers industry, notwithstanding. This is the nature of large, centrally managed systems that brought us the factories of the industrial revolution and now bring us the prefab AI factory of the future.

Andersen Design has always been of the alternative culture:

Before the 1930s when V. Gordon Childe’ began investigating the role of hand-crafted production from a socio-political angle, archaeologists limited their consideration of specialized manufacture to the economic realm. Childe argued that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few thwarted the development of a broad market for craft goods and discouraged technological innovation. At the same time, Europe’s itinerant craftspersons were developing dynamic sociopolitical structures that encouraged technological experimentation and scientific progress.

The importance of craft manufacture to long-term economic processes is not denied. What is being challenged is the notion that fabricating items at any scale can be understood as a purely economic activity that solely generates surpluses to meet market demands. Instead, artisans are increasingly envisioned as having actively participated in fashioning the social and cultural worlds they inhabited. How they went about this creative process, and how much freedom they enjoyed in its enactment, are hotly contested. Schortman, E.M., Urban, P.A. Modeling the Roles of Craft Production in Ancient Political Economies. Journal of Archaeological Research 12, 185–226 (2004 pg 196

Architecture has a significant psychological presence.