Have university knowledge flows narrowed?. Evidence from patent data

Research Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-13

  Rosell, Carlos ^a   Agrawal, Ajay ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Anti commons; Bayh Dole Act; Diffusion; Knowledge flows; University patents

Indexed keywords

DIFFUSION; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

ANTI-COMMONS; BAYH-DOLE ACT; KNOWLEDGE FLOWS; OUT-FLOWS; PATENT CITATIONS; PRIOR ARTS; SOCIAL WELFARES; TECHNOLOGY FIELDS; TIME PERIODS; UNIVERSITY PATENTS;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

EID: 57749172250     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.014     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Agrawal A. Engaging the inventor: exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 27 1 (2006) 63-79
2. Agrawal A., and Garlappi L. Public sector science and the strategy of the commons. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 7-8 (2007) 517-539
3. Agrawal A., and Goldfarb A. Restructuring research: communication costs and the democratization of university innovation. The American Economic Review 98 4 (2008) 1578-1590
4. Agrawal A., and Henderson R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 44-60
5. Ai C., and Norton E. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic Letters 80 1 (2003) 123-129
6. Alcacer J., and Gittelman M. How do i know what you know? Patent examiners and the generation of patent citations. Review of Economics and Statistics 88 4 (2006) 774-779
7. Argyres N., and Liebskind J. Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology research. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 35 4 (1998) 427-454
8. Bercovitz J., and Feldman M. Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19 1 (2008) 69-89
9. Breschi S., Lissoni F., and Montobbio F. The scientific productivity of academic inventors: new evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 2 (2007) 101-118
10. Buenstorf G. Commercializing basic science as a competitor or complement of academic accomplishment? The case of Max Planck directors (2005), Max Planck Institute of Economics, mimeo
11. Calerini, M., Franzoni, C., 2004. Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications. CESPRI Working Paper No. 162.
12. Carayol N. Academic incentives, research organization, and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 1-2 (2007) 119-138
13. Cockburn I., Kortum S., and Stern S. Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of examiner characteristics on patent statistics and litigation outcomes. In: Cohen W., and Merrill S. (Eds). Patents in the Knowledge-based Economy (2004), National Academy Press
14. Cohen W., Florida R., Randazzese L., and Walsh J. Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: Noll R. (Ed). Challenges to the Research University (1998), Brookings Institution 171-200
15. Cohen W., and Walsh J. Public research, patents, and implications for industrial R&D in the drug, biotechnology, semiconductor and computer industries. In: Wessner C. (Ed). Capitalizing on New Needs and New Opportunities: Government-Industry Partnerships in Biotechnology and Information Technologies (2001), National Academy Press
16. Colyvas J., Crow M., Gelijns A., Mazzoleni R., Nelson R., Rosenberg N., and Sampat B. How do university inventions get into practice?. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 61-72
17. Dranove D., Kessler D., McClellan M., and Satterthwaite M. Is more information better? The effects of report cards on health care providers. Journal of Political Economy 111 3 (2003) 555-588
18. Easterly W., and Levine R. Africa's growth tragedy: policies and ethnic division. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 4 (1997) 1203-1250
19. Eisenberg R. Patent swords and shields. Science 299 5609 (2003) 1018
20. Fabrizio K., and DiMinin A. Commercializing the laboratory: faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy 37 (2008) 914-931
21. Goldfarb B., Marshke G., and Smith A. Scholarship and Inventive Activity in the University: Complements or Substitutes? (2006), University of Maryland, Mimeo
22. Hall B., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. In: Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. (Eds). Patents, Citations, & Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy (2002), The MIT Press 403-459
23. Hall B., and Ziedonis R.H. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. The Rand Journal of Economics 32 1 (2001) 101-128
24. Hegde, D., Sampat, B., 2007. Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents. Working paper available at: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hegde/research.html.
25. Heller M., and Eisenberg R. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280 5364 (1998) 698-701
26. Henderson R., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80 1 (1965-1988) 119-127
27. Information Products Division, Technology Assessment and Forecast Branch, 2005. U.S. colleges and universities-utility patent grants, calendar years 1969-2005. Tech. Rep. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. http://www.uspto.gov/go/oeip/taf/univ/univtoc.htm.
28. Jaffe A., and Lerner J. Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress and What to Do About It (2004), Princeton University Press
29. Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M., and Fogarty M. The meaning of patent citations: report on the NBER/case western reserve survey of patentees. In: Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. (Eds). Patents, Citations, & Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy (2002), The MIT Press 379-402
30. Jensen R., and Thursby M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review 91 1 (2001) 240-259
31. Lach S., and Schankerman M. Incentives and invention in universities. The Rand Journal of Economics 39 2 (2008) 403-433
32. Lieberwitz R. Confronting the privatization and the commercialization of academic research: an analysis of social implications at the local, national, and global levels. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 12 1 (2005) 109-152
33. Mazzoleni R. University patents, R&D competition, and social welfare. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 14 6 (2005) 499-515
34. Mowery D., Nelson R., Sampat B., and Ziedonis A. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States (2004), Stanford Business Books
35. Murray F., and Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (2007) 648-687
36. National Institutes of Health, 2005. Best practices for the licensing of genomic inventions. Tech. Rep. National Institutes of Health, Federal Register.
37. National Science Board, 2004. Science and engineering indicators 2004. Tech. Rep. National Science Board, Appendix, Table 4.8. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04.
38. Nelson R. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (1993), Oxford University Press
39. Owen-Smith J., and Powell W. To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 1 (2001) 99-114
40. Owen-Smith J., and Powell W. The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy 32 9 (2003) 1695-1711
41. Papke L., and Wooldridge J. Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (K) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11 6 (1996) 619-632
42. Powell W., and Owen-Smith J. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17 2 (1998) 253-277
43. Rhoten D., and Powell W. The frontiers of intellectual property: expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3 (2007) 345-373
44. Rivette K., and Kline D. Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents (2000), Harvard Business School Press
45. Romer P. Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94 5 (1986) 1002-1037
46. Romer P. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 5 (1990) 98
47. Rosell, C., Agrawal, A., 2006. University patenting: estimating the diminishing breadth of knowledge diffusion and consumption. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 12,640.
48. Sampat, B., 2004. Examining patent examination: an analysis of examiner and applicant generated prior art. Working Paper. Georgia Institute of Technology.
49. Sampat B., Mowery D., and Ziedonis A. Changes in university patent quality after Bayh-Dole: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (2003) 1371-1390
50. Serrano, C.J., 2005. The market for intellectual property: evidence from the transfer of patents. Working Paper. University of Toronto.
51. Shapiro C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy 1 (2001) 119-150
52. Stokes D.E. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (1997), Brookings Institution Press
53. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1987. A classification of institutions of higher education, 1987 edition. Tech. Rep. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
54. Thompson P. Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: evidence from inventor and examiner added citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 2 (2006) 383-388
55. Thursby, M., Thursby, J., Dechenaux, E., 2005. Shirking, sharing risk, and shelving: the role of university contracts. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11, p. 128.
56. Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., and Jaffe A. University versus corporate patents: a window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 5 1 (1997) 19-50
57. Van Looy B., Callaert J., and Debackere K. Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or Merely Co-existing?. Research Policy 35 4 (2006) 596-598
58. Walsh J., Arora A., and Cohen W. Effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation. In: Cohen W., and Merrill S. (Eds). Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (2003), National Academy Press
59. Walsh J., Cho C., and Cohen W. View from the bench: patents and material transfer. Science 309 (2002) 3
60. Warshofsky F. The Patent Wars: The Battle to Own the World's Technology (1994), John Wiley & Sons, Inc
61. Ziedonis R.H. Don't fence me in: fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Science 50 6 (2004) 804-820