The changing composition of innovative activity in the US - A portrait based on patent analysis

Research Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 681-703

  Hicks, Diana ^a   Breitzman, Tony ^a   Olivastro, Dominic ^a   Hamilton, Kimberly ^a  

^a CHI Research Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Innovation; Local; Patent; United States; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000128587     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00147-5     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not) WBER Working Paper Series no. 7552.
2. Freeman, C., Perez, C., 1988. Structural crisis of adjustment: business cycles and investment behaviour. In: G. Dosi et al. (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter, London.
3. Hall, B.H., Ham Zeidonis, R.M., 2000. The patent paradox revisited: determinants of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, mimeo.
4. Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Rev. Econ. and Stat. 80:1998;119-127.
5. Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q. J. Econ. 434:1993;577-598.
6. Kortum S., Lerner J. What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Res. Policy. 28:1999;1-22.
7. Koumpis K., Pavitt K. Corporate activities in speech recognition and natural language: another "new science"-based technology. Int. J. Innovation Manage. 3:1999;335-366.
8. Meyer M. Does Science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res. Policy. 29:2000;409-434.
9. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B.N., Ziedonis, A.A., 2000. The growth of patenting and licensing by us universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Working paper no. 7, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs.
10. Narin F., Hamilton K.S., Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between us technology and public science. Res. Policy. 26:1997;317-330.
11. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, 1998. NSB 98-1, Appendix, Tables 4-55, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
12. National Science Board, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2000. NSB 00-1, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
13. National Science Board, ND 1998, NSB 98-99. Industry Trends in Research Support and Links to Public Research. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
14. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), 1999. Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future. National Coordination Office for Computing, Arlington, VA.
15. Rosenbloom, R.S., Spencer W.J. (Eds.), 1996. Engines of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
16. Waldman, P., 2000. Lawyers discover that drumming up business means dressing down. The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition, http://public.wsj.com/careers/resources/documents/19990322-waldman.htm .
17. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J., 1994. Intellectual capital and the firm: the technology of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 4946.
18. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., 1995. Present at the revolution: transformation of technical identity for a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm after the biotechnological breakthrough. NBER Working Paper Series, no. 5243.