I've been reading about the scientist who shot several members of her department at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The Wall Street Journal article linked above says, in part, "According to a 2006 profile in the Huntsville Times, Ms. Bishop and her husband invented a cell-growth incubator that promised to cut costs and maintenance involved in cell generation."
She had been at the University since 2003 and the president of her university said her invention would change the way biological research is conducted.
Regrettably, I'm no longer on a liberal arts campus, though I have a question in to a biologist about if she thinks that's the case.
But taking the UAH president at his word and assuming the idea was revolutionary, given that it was invented while Ms. Bishop worked at UAH, does that mean that it belongs to the University and that the University keeps all the potential profits from her idea even though they had just kicked her out the door?
Now THAT'S a motive for murder.