The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity

Scientometrics

Volumn 69, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 387-407

  Baldini, Nicola ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748668001     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0159-0     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. AGRAWAL, A., HENDERSON, R. (2002), Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT, Management Science, 48: 44-60.
2. ALLAN, M. F. (2001), A review of best practices in university technology licensing offices, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 13: 57-69.
3. ARROW, K. J. (1962), Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: R. R. NELSON (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ., pp. 609-625.
4. AZAORA CARD, J. M., DE LUCIO, I. F., GRACIA, A. G. (2003), University patents: Output and input indicators... of what? Research Evaluation, 12: 5-16.
5. BALCONI, M., BRESCHI, S., LISSONI, F. (2003), Il trasferimento di conoscenze tecnologiche dall'universitàall'industria in Italia: nuova evidenza sui brevetti di paternità dei docenti. In: A. BONACCORSI (Ed.), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia. Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 58-100.
6. BALCONI, M., BRESCHI, S., LISSONI, F. (2004), Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data, Research Policy, 33: 127-145.
7. BALDINT, N., GRIMALDI, R., SOBRERO, M. (2006), Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities' patenting activities between 1965 and 2002, Research Policy, 35: 518-532.
8. th June, Milan.
9. BUSH, V. (1945), Science: The Endless Frontier, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
10. CALDERINI, M., GARRONE, P., SOBRERO, M. (2003), Corporate Governance, Market Structure and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA.
11. CARAYOL, N., MATT, M. (2004), Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university, Research Policy, 33: 1081-1102.
12. CESARONI, F., PICCALUGA, A. (2003), L'attività brevettuale degli enti pubblici di ricerca in Italia ed in Europa. Rilevante? In crescita? Utile? In: A. BONACCORSI (Ed.), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia. Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 101-132.
13. CORIAT, B., ORSI, F. (2002), Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States. Origins, content and problems, Research Policy, 31: 1491-1507.
14. COUPÉ, T. (2003), Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 31-46.
15. DANISH RECTORS' CONFERENCE (2005), Private communication.
16. DAVID, P. A. (1994), Reputation and Agency in the Historical Emergence of the Institutions of Open Science, CEPR discussion paper #261, Stanford University.
17. DE JUAN, V. (2002), Comparative study of technology transfer practices in Europe and the United States, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 14: 31-58.
18. ETZKOWITZ, H. (2003), Research group as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university, Research Policy, 32: 109-121.
19. ETZKOWITZ, H., LEYDESDORFF, L. (1999), The future location of research and technology transfer, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24: 111-123.
20. ETZKOWITZ, H., WEBSTER, W., GEBHARDT, C., CANTISANO TERRA, B. R. (2000), The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy, 29: 313-330.
21. FELLER, I. (1990), Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: They think they can, Research Policy, 19: 335-348.
22. FRIEDMAN, J., SILBERMAN, J. (2003), University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 17-30.
23. GEUNA, A. (1998), The internationalization of European universities: A return to medieval roots, Minerva, 36: 253-270.
24. GEUNA, A. (1999), The Economics of Knowledge Production. Funding and the Structure of University Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA.
25. GEUNA, A. (2001), The changing rationale for university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35: 607-632.
26. GEUNA, A., NESTA, L. (2003), University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research, Working paper # 99, Science and Technology Policy Research, Brighton, UK.
27. GOLDFARB, B., HENREKSON, M. R. (2003), Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property, Research Policy, 32: 639-658.
28. HENDERSON, R., JAFFE, A. B., TRAJITENBERG, M. (1998), Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-88, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80: 119-132.
29. HENREKSON, M., ROSENBERG, N. (2001), Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from U.S. and Sweden, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 207-231.
30. JACOB, M., LUNDQVIST, M., HELLSMARK, H. (2003), Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology, Research Policy, 32: 1555-1568.
31. JENSEN, R., THURSBY, J. G., THURSBY, M. C. (2003), The Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions, Working paper # 9734, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
32. KENNEY, M., GOE, W. R. (2004), The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at U.C. Berkeley and Stanford, Research Policy, 33: 691-707.
33. LACH, S., SCHANKERMAN, M. (2003), Incentives and Invention in Universities, Working paper # 9727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
34. LEE, Y. S. (1996), Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration, Research Policy, 25: 843-863.
35. MANSFIELD, E. (1991), Academic research and industrial innovation, Research Policy, 20: 1-12.
36. MARKIEWICZ, K. R., DIMININ, A. (2004), Commercializing the Laboratory: The Relationship between Faculty Patenting and Publishing, Mimeo, University of California at Berkeley.
37. MEYER, M. (2003), Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness, Research Evaluation, 12: 17-27.
38. MEYER, M., SINILÄINEN, T., UTECHT, J. T. (2003), Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors, Scientometrics, 58: 321-350.
39. MEYER-KRAHMER, F., SCHMOCH, U. (1998), Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields, Research Policy, 21: 835-851.
40. MOWERY, D. C., NELSON, R. R., SAMPAT, B. R., ZIEDONIS, A. 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.
41. MOWERY, D. C., NELSON, R. R., SAMPAT, B. R., ZIEDONIS, A. A. (2004), Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
42. MOWERY, D. C., SAMPAT, B. N., ZIEDONIS, A. A. (2002), Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-2002, Management Science, 48: 73-89.
43. NELSON, R. R. (1959), The simple economics of basic scientific research, Journal of Political Economy, 67: 297-306.
44. NELSON, R. R. (2001), Observation on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 13-19.
45. NOWOTNY, H., SCOTT, P., GIBBONS, M. (2003), 'Mode 2' revisited: The new production of knowledge, Minerva, 41: 179-194.
46. ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (2003), Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations, OECD Publications, Paris.
47. PICCALUGA, A., PATRONO, A. (2001), L'attività brevettuale degli enti pubblici di ricerca italiani. Un'analisi sul periodo 1982-2001, Economia e Politico Italiana, 109: 81-114.
48. RANGA, L. M., DEBACKERE, K., VON TUNZELMANN, N. (2003), Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium, Scientometrics, 58: 301-320.
49. ROBERTS, E. B. (2001), Benchmarking global strategic management of technology, Research Technology Management, 44 (2): 25-36.
50. ROGERS, E. M., YIN, J., HOFFMANN, J. (2000), Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at U.S. research universities, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12: 47-80.
51. ROSENBERG, N., NELSON, R. R. (1994), American universities and technical advance in industry, Research Policy, 23: 323-348.
52. SAMPAT, B. N., MOWERY, D. C., ZIEDONIS, A. A. (2003), Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: A re-examination, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21: 1371-1390.
53. SAPSALIS, A., VAN POTTELSBERGHE, B. (2003), Insight into the patenting performance of Belgian universities, Brussels Economic Review, 46 (3): 1-11.
54. SARAGOSSI, S., VAN POTTELSBERGHE, B. (2003), What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 47-51.
55. SCHMIEMANN, M., DURVY, J.-N. (2003), New approaches to technology transfer from publicly funded research, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 9-15.
56. SHANE, S. (2004), Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spin-offs and Wealth Creation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA.
57. SIEGEL, D. S., WALDMANN, D. A., LINK, A. N. (2003), Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study, Research Policy, 32: 27-48.
58. rd May, Cambridge, MA.
59. THURSBY, J. C., JENSEN, R., THURSBY, M. C. (2001), Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. Universities, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 59-72.
60. THURSBY, J. G., THURSBY, M. C. (1999), Purdue Licensing Survey: A Summary of Results, Working paper, Purdue University.
61. THURSBY, J. G., THURSBY, M. C. (2002), Who is selling to the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing, Management Science, 48: 90-104.
62. th Triple Helix Conference, Copenhagen, 6th-8th November 2002.
63. TRUNE, D. R., GOSLIN, L. N. (1998), University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57: 197-204.
64. VALENTIN, F. (2000), Danske Virksomheders brug af Offentlig Forskning; En Casebaseret Undersoegelse, Copenhagen, Danmarks Forskningsraad.
65. VAN LOOY, B., RANGA, M., CALLAERT, J., DEBACKERE, K., ZIMMERMANN, E. (2004), Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Mattheweffect? Research Policy, 33: 425-441.
66. WALLMARK, J. T. (1997), Inventions and patents at universities: The case of Chalmers University of Technology, Technovation, 17 (3): 127-139.