Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence

Scientometrics

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 289-311

  Baldini, Nicola ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42449149459     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1865-y     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Agrawal, A. (2001), University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3: 285-302.
2. Agrawal, A., Henderson, R. (2002), Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT, Management Science, 48: 44-60.
3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T. (2005), The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behaviour: Demographics or Opportunities?, Working paper # 11348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
4. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T. (2006), The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research Output, Working paper # 11917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
5. 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.
6. Baldini, N. (2006), University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature, Research Evaluation, 15: 197-207.
7. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., Sobrero, M. (2007), To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives and obstacles to university patenting, Scientometrics, 70: 333-354.
8. Beath, J., Owen, R. F., Poyago-Theotoky, J., Ulph, D. (2003), Optimal incentives for income-generation in universities: The rule of thumb for the Compton tax, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21: 1301-1322.
9. Behrens, T. R., Gray, D. O. (2001), Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome, Research Policy, 30: 179-199.
10. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., Louis, K. S. (1997), Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty, Journal of American Medicine Association, 277: 1224-1228.
11. Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E. G., Louis, K. S. (1996), Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences. An industry survey, The New England Journal of Medicine, 334: 368-373.
12. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Wise, D. (1986), Industrial support of university research in biotechnology, Science, 231: 242-246.
13. Campbell, E. G., Blumenthal, D. (1999), Perils of university-industry collaboration, Issues in Science and Technology, 16(1): 15.
14. Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., Blumenthal, D. (2000), Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials, Research Policy, 29: 303-312.
15. Carayol, N., Matt, M. (2004), Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university, Research Policy, 33: 1081-1102.
16. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Goe, W. R. (1994), University-Industry Research Centres in the United States, Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University.
17. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., Walsh, J. P. (1998), Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: R. G. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to Research Universities. Brooking Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 171-199.
18. Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. (2002a), R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States, Research Policy, 31: 1349-1367.
19. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. (2002b), Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D, Management Science, 48: 1-23.
20. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., Sampat, B. N. (2002), How do university inventions get into practice?, Management Science, 48: 61-72.
21. Dasgupta, P., David, P. A. (1994), Toward a new economics of science, Research Policy, 23: 487-521.
22. Etzkowitz, H. (2002), The Triple Helix: MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, Gordon and Breach, London.
23. Etzkowitz, H. (2003), Research group as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university, Research Policy, 32: 109-121.
24. Florida, R. (1999), The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology, Issues in Science and Technology, 15(4): 67-73.
25. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M. (2006), Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling, Research Policy, 35: 309-323.
26. Geuna, A., Nesta, L. (2006), University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence, Research Policy, 35: 790-807.
27. Gluck, M., Blumenthal, D., Stoto, M. A. (1987), University-industry relationships in the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows, Research Policy, 16: 327-336.
28. Gulbrandsen, M., Smeby, J.-C. (2005), Industry funding and university professors' research performance, Research Policy, 34: 932-950.
29. Heller, M. A., Eisenberg, R. S. (1998), Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in bio-medical research, Science, 280: 698-701.
30. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., Trajitenberg, M. (1995), Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965-88, Working paper # 5068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
31. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., Trajitenberg, M. (1998), Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-88, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80: 119-132.
32. Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., Vonortas, N. S. (2006), Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships, Research Policy, 35: 825-838.
33. Jensen, R., Thursby, M. C. (2004), Patent Licensing and the Research University, Working paper # 10758, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
34. Kenney, M. (1987), The ethical dilemma of university-industry collaborations, Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2): 127-135.
35. Kortum, S., Lerner, J. (1999), What is behind the recent surge in patenting?, Research Policy, 28: 1-22.
36. Lach, S., Schankerman, M. (2003), Incentives and Invention in Universities, Working paper # 9727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
37. Lee, Y. S. (2000), The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment, Journal of Technology Transfer, 25: 111-133.
38. Lin, M.-W., Bozeman, B. (2006), Researchers' industry experience and productivity in university-industry research centres: A "scientific and technical human capital" explanation, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31: 269-290.
39. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., Stoto, M. A. (1989), Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviours among life scientists, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 110-131.
40. Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G. (2001), Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 233-245.
41. Lowe, R. A. (2006), Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies, Journal of Technology Transfer, 31: 415-429.
42. Mansfield, E. (1991), Academic research and industrial innovation, Research Policy, 20: 1-12.
43. Marshall, E. (2000), Patent suit pits post-doc against former mentor, Science, 287: 2399-2401.
44. Maurer, S. M. (2006), Inside the anticommons: Academic scientists' struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human mutations database, 1999-2001, Research Policy, 35: 839-853.
45. Merton, R. K. (1968), Matthew effect, Science, 159: 56-63.
46. Merton, R. K. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
47. Meyer, M. (2006a), Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology, Scientometrics, 68: 545-560.
48. Meyer, M. (2006b), Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology, Research Policy, 35: 1646-1662.
49. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. R., Ziedonis, A. A. (2001), The growth of patenting and licensing by the U.S. universities: An assessment of the effect of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, Research Policy, 30: 99-119.
50. Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N. (2005), The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments?, Journal of Technology Transfer, 30: 115-127.
51. 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, 1981-1992, Management Science, 48: 73-89
52. Mowery, D. C., Ziedonis, A. A. (2002), Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, Research Policy, 31: 399-418.
53. Murray, F., Stern, S. (2005), Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-commons Hypothesis, Working paper # 11465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
54. Nelson, R. R. (2004), The market economy, and the scientific commons, Research Policy, 33: 455-471.
55. Odza, M. (1996), Big winners in university tech transfer: And the winners are., Technology Access Report, 9(4): 1-4.
56. Organization For Economic Co-Operation And Development (2003), Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations, OECD Publications, Paris.
57. Park, C. L. (2004), What is the value of replicating other studies?, Research Evaluation, 13: 189-195.
58. Pavitt, K. (1998), Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities?, Research Evaluation, 7: 105-111.
59. Powers, J. B., Mcdougall, P. P. (2005), University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 291-311.
60. Rahm, D. (1994), Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer, Policy Studies Journal, 22: 267-278.
61. 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.
62. Renault, C. S. (2006), Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship, Journal of Technolgy Transfer, 31: 227-239.
63. Rosell, C., Agrawal, A. (2006), University Patenting: Estimating the Diminishing Breadth of Knowledge Diffusion and Consumption, Working paper # 12640, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
64. Rosenberg, S. A. (1996), Secrecy in medical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, 334: 392-394.
65. Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R. R. (1994), American universities and technical advance in industry, Research Policy, 23: 323-348.
66. Sampat, B. N. (2006), Patenting and U.S. academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole, Research Policy, 35: 772-789.
67. 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.
68. Schmoch, U. (1999), Interaction of universities and industrial enterprises in Germany and the United States - a comparison, Industry and Innovation, 6: 51-68.
69. 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.
70. Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Holleman, M., Morgan, E. (2002), The "traffic" in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27: 282-312.
71. Stephan, P. E. (2001), Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26: 199-205.
72. Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., Black, G. (2005), Who's Patenting in the University? Evidence from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, Mimeo, Georgia State University.
73. Stokes, D. (1997), Pasteur's Quadrant, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
74. The Economist. (2002), Innovation's Golden Goose, 365(8303), p. 3.
75. Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M. C. (2000), Industry perspectives on licensing university technologies: Sources and problems, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12: 9-22.
76. 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.
77. Thursby J. G., Thursby, M. C. (2003), Industry/university licensing: Characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28: 207-213.
78. Thursby J. G., Thursby, M. C. (2004), Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing, Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(4): 162-170.
79. Thursby, M. C., Thursby, J. G., Dechenaux, E. (2005), Shirking, Sharing Risk, and Shelving: The Role of University License Contracts, Working paper # 11128, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
80. Trajitenberg, M., Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B. (1997), University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of inventions, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5: 19-50.
81. Trune, D. R., Goslin, L. N. (1998), University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57: 197-204.
82. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., Zimmermann, E. (2004), Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33: 425-441.
83. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., Debackere, K. (2006), Publication and patent behaviour of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?, Research Policy, 35: 596-608.
84. Walsh, J. P., Arora, A., Cohen, W. M. (2003), Research tool patenting and licensing and biomedical innovation. In: W. M. Cohen, S. A. Merril (Eds), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 285-340.