Do corporations have more right to a patent than universities?

Slashdot asks if universities should be able to hold patents and intellectual property if they get grants and donations (and taxpayer funds) as an educational institution.

I have another perspective? Why not?

If taxpayers funded the studies through an educational institution, shouldn't it be able to reap some of the benefits? In some cases, corporations can sponsor university research and obtain the intellectual property rights. Shouldn't a taxpayer-funded institution have the same rights?

If the concern is letting universities profit from research funded by third parties, then call me confused. Most universities have a wide range of funding sources for their research, from public money (state and federal), alumni donations, and corporate sponsorships. Is the variety of funding sources somehow more repugnant than a corporation who receives money from consumers?

If the concern is freedom of information, then it seems that patent law generally would be the source for concern. Are patents too broad in scope? Too long? Should certain things not be patented? The constitutional source of patents (Article I, Section 8) is a good start:

The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;