I suspect these rules are really meant for biotech research, though. They'd never get away with applying them to web stuff. If I were a student and started working on a web project, I'd ignore these rules.
Pitt's policy is pretty much completely ignorable if you're a student, unless you go out of the way to lose your IP rights. There's been a campaign to get more faculty to submit "invention disclosures" to the tech transfer office but I'm not sure how aggressively the university would litigate if a faculty member just didn't submit their research and proceeded to commercialization themselves.
However, the policy is less draconian when you realize that the revenue split only applies to patent licensing revenue. A professor's start up company would not have to pay licensing fees to the university. It really only makes sense for biotech because there is almost no money in licensing new software patents.
Perhaps more interesting is that Pitt's tech transfer is run at a net loss -- the vice provost said recently that they are just now breaking even which means they are probably still losing money.
Option 1: they don't think it's worth patenting, you can do whatever you want, so long as you give them 15% of revenue resulting from said idea.
Option 2: They patent it for you and you get 30% of revenue.
Either way, you really don't want the university to get hold of your IP, except you can get a free patent in your name out of it.
You should get some documentation showing whatever you developed, you developed on your own time.