Institutions and intellectual property: The influence of institutional forces on university patenting

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 579-598

  Dai, Yixin ^a   Popp, David ^a,b   Bretschneider, Stuart ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22144475480     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20116     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Association of University Technology Managers. (1998). AUTM licensing survey: Survey summary. Norwalk, CT: Author.
2. Audretsch, D., Link, A., & Scott, J. (2002). Public/private technology partnership: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31, 145-158.
3. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627-655.
4. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2003). Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research centers: Institutional innovation in academic community. Report for IBM Center for the Business of Government.
5. Bush, V. (1980). Science-the endless frontier: A report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
6. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.
8. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as "quasi-firms": The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-121.
9. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper #8498.
10. Harris, K. (1984). Factors associated with external funding in higher education: A review of research. Journal of the Society of Research Administrator, 15(3), 39-47.
11. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119-127.
12. Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1996). Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories: modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(23), 12671-12677.
13. Jencks, C., & Reisman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. New York: Doubleday.
14. Link, A. (1996). On the classification of industrial R&D. Research Policy, 25, 397-401.
15. Moore, K. (1996). Organizing integrity: American science and the creation of public interest organizations, 1955-1975. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), 1592-1597.
16. Mowrey, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99-119.
17. Mowery, D., & Ziedonis, A. (1999). The effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. university research and technology transfer: Analyzing data from entrants and incumbents, Meeting of the Science and Technology Group.
18. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1996). Science and Engineering Indicators 1996.
19. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2002a). National Patterns of R&D Resources. Volume 1.
20. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2002b). Science and Engineering Indicators 2002.
21. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2001). To patent or not, faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 99-114.
22. Parker, L. (1997). The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program: An assessment of benefits and outcomes. National Science Foundation report. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf9840/nsf9840. htm.
23. Popp, D. (2002). Induced innovation and energy prices. American Economic Review, 92(1), 160-180.
24. Popp, D., Juhl, T., & Johnson, D. (2004). Time in Purgatory: Determinants of the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications. Topics of Economic Analysis & Policy, 4, Article 29. Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/topics/vol4/issl/art29.
25. Rogers, J., & Bozeman, B. (2001). Knowledge value alliances: An alternative to R&D project evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 26, 23-55.
26. Salter, A., & Martin, B. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509-532.
27. Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M., & Frohlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria. Research Policy, 31, 303-328.
28. Shapley, D., & Roy, R. (1985). Lost at the frontier - U.S. science and technology policy adrift. Philadelphia, PA: iSi Press.
29. Smith, B. (1990). American science policy since World War II. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution,
30. Storr, R. (1952). The beginnings of graduate education in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31. Thursby, J., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59-72.
32. Wodarski, J. (1990). The university research enterprise. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.