Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity

Research Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1217-1224

  Baldini, Nicola ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Faculty survey; Obstacle; Open science; Substitution effect; University patent

Indexed keywords

FACULTY SURVEY; OBSTACLE; OPEN SCIENCE; SUBSTITUTION EFFECT; UNIVERSITY PATENT;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SURVEYS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 68949194426     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.013     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Agrawal A., and Henderson R. Putting patents in context, exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 (2002) 44-60
2. Allan M.F. A review of best practices in university technology licensing offices. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 13 (2001) 57-69
3. Argyres N.S., and Liebeskind J.P. Privatizing the intellectual commons: universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 35 (1998) 427-454
4. Azagra-Caro J.N., Yegros-Yegros A., and Archontakis F. What do university patent routes indicate at regional level?. Scientometrics 66 (2006) 219-230
5. 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.
6. Azoulay P., Ding W., and Stuart T. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: demographics or opportunities?. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63 (2007) 599-623
7. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., 2003. Il trasferimento di conoscenze tecnologiche dall'università all'industria in Italia: nuova evidenza sui brevetti di paternità dei docenti. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), Il sistema della ricerca pubblica in Italia. Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 58-100.
8. Baldini N. The Act on inventions at public research institutions: Danish universities' patenting activity. Scientometrics 69 (2006) 387-407
9. Baldini N. University patenting and licensing activity: a review of the literature. Research Evaluation 15 (2006) 197-207
10. Baldini N. Negative effects of university patenting: myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics 75 (2008) 289-311
11. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., 2005. Creating the mechanisms to support research spin-offs: an assessment of the Emilia Romagna region. Report to ASTER - Agency for the Technological Development of Emilia Romagna, Bologna.
12. Baldini N., Grimaldi R., and Sobrero M. Institutional changes and the commercialisation of academic knowledge: a study of Italian universities' patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy 35 (2006) 518-532
13. Baldini N., Grimaldi R., and Sobrero M. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70 (2007) 333-354
14. Blumenstyk, G., 1999. How one university pursued profit from science - and won. Chronicle of Higher Education, February 12.
15. Blumenthal D., Causino N., Campbell E.G., and Louis K.S. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences. An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334 (1996) 368-373
16. Breno, E., Fava, G.A., Guardabasso, V., Stefanelli, M., 2002. La ricerca scientifica nelle università italiane. Una prima analisi delle citazioni della banca dati ISI. Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane, Rome.
17. Breschi S., Lissoni F., and Montobbio F. From publishing to patenting: do productive scientists turn into academic inventors?. Revue d'Économie Industrielle 110 2 (2005) 75-102
18. Bush V. Science: The Endless Frontier (1945), Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
19. Calderini M., Franzoni C., and Vezzulli A. If star scientists do not patent: the effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy 36 (2007) 303-319
20. Campbell E.G., Weissman J.S., Causino N., and Blumenthal D. Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy 29 (2000) 303-312
21. Chang Y.-C., and Yang P.Y. The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: a test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Management 38 (2008) 321-334
22. Chapple W., Lockett A., Siegel D., and Wright M. Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy 34 (2005) 369-384
23. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., and Walsh J.P. Links and impacts: the influence of public re-search on industrial R&D. Management Science 48 (2002) 1-23
24. Colyvas J., Crow M., Gelijns A., Mazzoleni R., Nelson R.R., Rosenberg N., and Sampat B.N. How do university inventions get into practice?. Management Science 48 (2002) 61-72
25. Cook-Degan R. The science commons in health research: structure, function, and value. Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (2007) 133-156
26. Coupé T. Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (2003) 31-46
27. Croon M.A., and van Veldhoven M.J.P.M. Predicting group level outcome variables from variables measured at the individual level: a latent variable multilevel model. Psychological Methods 12 (2007) 45-57
28. David P.A. Can "open science" be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections?. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 160 (2004) 9-34
29. de Juan V. Comparative study of technology transfer practices in Europe and the United States. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 14 (2002) 31-58
30. Debackere K., and Veugelers R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy 34 (2005) 321-342
31. Etzkowitz H., and Klofsten M. The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management 35 (2005) 243-255
32. Etzkowitz H., Webster W., Gebhardt C., and Cantisano Terra B.R. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29 (2000) 313-330
33. Fabrizio K.R., and Di Minin A. Commercializing the laboratory: faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy 37 (2008) 914-931
34. Friedman J., and Silberman J. University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (2003) 17-30
35. Geiger R.L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II (1993), Oxford University Press, New York
36. Gerbing D.W., and Andersson J.C. Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance structures: their interpretability and a comparison of alternative respecifications. Psychmetrica 52 (1987) 99-111
37. Geuna A. The changing rationale for European university research funding: are there negative unintended consequences?. Journal of Economic Issue 35 (2001) 607-632
38. Geuna A., and Nesta L. University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35 (2006) 790-807
39. Goldfarb B., and Henrekson M.R. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy 32 (2003) 639-658
40. Grandi A., and Grimaldi R. Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing 20 (2005) 821-845
41. Gulbrandsen M., and Smeby J.-C. Industry funding and university professors' research performance. Research Policy 34 (2005) 932-950
42. Hackett S.M., and Dilts D.M. A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (2004) 55-82
43. Hair J., Anderson R., Tatham R., and Black W. Multivariate Data Analysis (1995), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
44. Hellmann, T., 2005. The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. Working paper 11460, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
45. Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-88. The Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (1998) 119-132
46. Henrekson M., and Rosenberg N. Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lesson from US and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (2001) 207-231
47. Hertzfeld H.R., Link A.N., and Vonortas N.S. Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy 35 (2006) 825-838
48. Huber P.J. The behaviour of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1 (1967), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA 221-233
49. Jacob M., Lundqvist M., and Hellsmark H. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy 32 (2003) 1555-1568
50. Jensen R., Thursby J.C., and Thursby M.C. Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with'. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (2003) 1271-1300
51. Jensen R., and Thursby M.C. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing. American Economic Review 91 (2001) 240-259
52. Kenney M., and Goe W.R. 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 (2004) 691-707
53. Kortum S., and Lerner J. What is behind the recent surge in patenting?. Research Policy 28 (1999) 1-22
54. Lach, S., Schankerman, M., 2003. Incentives and Invention in Universities. Working paper 9727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
55. Louis K.S., Blumenthal D., Gluck M.E., and Stoto M.A. Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration of behaviours among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (1989) 110-131
56. Markman G.D., Gianiodis P.T., Phan P.H., and Balkin D.B. Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Research Policy 34 (2005) 1058-1075
57. Mazzoleni R. The effects of university patenting and licensing on downstream R&D investment and social welfare. Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (2006) 431-441
58. Merton R.K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation (1973), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
59. Meyer M. Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation 12 (2003) 17-27
60. Meyer M., Du Plessis M., Tukeva T., and Utecht J.-T. Inventive output of academic research: a comparison of two science systems. Scientometrics 63 (2005) 145-161
61. Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., and Ziedonis A.A. The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy 30 (2001) 99-119
62. Mowery D.C., and Sampat B.N. University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980. Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (2001) 781-814
63. Mowery D.C., and Sampat B.N. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments?. Journal of Technology Transfer 30 (2005) 115-127
64. Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., and Ziedonis A.A. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science 48 (2002) 73-89
65. Mowery D.C., and Ziedonis A.A. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy 31 (2002) 399-418
66. Mowery D.C., and Ziedonis A.A. Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements?. Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (2007) 157-172
67. Nelson R.R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33 (2004) 455-471
68. Odza M. Big winners in university tech transfer: and the winners are.... Technology Access Report 9 4 (1996) 1-4
69. OECD. Turning Science into Business. Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations (2003), OECD Publications, Paris
70. OECD, 2005. University Education in Denmark. OECD Publications, Paris.
71. Owen-Smith J., and Powell W.W. To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (2001) 99-114
72. Packer K., and Webster A. Patenting culture in science: reinventing the wheel of credibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21 (1996) 427-453
73. Rafferty M. The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy 37 (2008) 29-40
74. 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.
75. Sampat B.N., Mowery D.C., and Ziedonis A.A. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (2003) 1371-1390
76. Saragossi S., and van Pottelsberghe B. What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (2003) 47-51
77. Shane S. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science 48 (2002) 122-137
78. Siegel D.S., Waldmann D.A., and Link A.N. Assessing the impact of organisational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy 32 (2003) 27-48
79. Stephan P.E. Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (2001) 199-205
80. Stephan P.E., Gurmu S., Sumell A.J., and Black G. Who's patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 61 (2007) 71-99
81. Stern S. Do scientists pay to be scientists?. Management Science 50 (2004) 835-853
82. Thursby J.G., and Thursby M.C. Who is selling to the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48 (2002) 90-104
83. Thursby M.C., Thursby J.G., and Mukherjee S. Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (2007) 577-598
84. Van Looy B., Ranga M., Callaert J., Debackere K., and Zimmermann E. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?. Research Policy 33 (2004) 425-441
85. Walsh J.P., Arora A., and Cohen W.M. Research tool patenting and licensing and biomedical innovation. In: Cohen W.M., and Merrill S. (Eds). Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (2003), The National Academies Press, Washington, DC 285-340
86. White H. Where do markets come from?. American Journal of Sociology 87 (1981) 517-547