The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect

Scientometrics

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 355-362

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a   Meyer, Martin ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Entrepreneurial university; Indicator; Legislation; Mode 2; Patents; Triple Helix

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952291284     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0001-6     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. AUTM. (2008). U. S. Licensing Activity Survey FY 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section=FY_2007_Licensing_Activity_Survey.
2. Baldini, 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(4), 518-532.
3. 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(2), 333-354.
4. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organization pathways of transformation. Guildford, UK: Pergamon.
5. Criscuolo, P. (2006). The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USTPTO and EPO. Scientometrics, 66(1), 23-41.
6. Dolfsma, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Innovation systems as patent networks. Paper presented at the Conference of European Association for Evolutionary and Political Economics, Rome, 5-7 November 2008.
7. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.
8. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge.
9. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
10. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
11. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17-30.
12. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
13. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69-115.
14. Graham, P. J., & Dickinson, H. D. (2007). Knowledge-system theory in society: Charting the growth of knowledge-system models over a decade, 1994-2003. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2372-2381.
15. 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.
16. Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740-760.
17. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1582-1597.
18. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 778-788.
19. Mendes, P., & Liyanage, S. (2002). Managing sponsored research rewards to industry and universities. International Journal of Technology Management, 24(2), 206-218.
20. Meyer, M. (2008). University patenting and IP management approaches in Europe. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.
21. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1), 115-127.
22. Mustar, P. (2007). Public policies to Foster the creation of university spin-off firms in Europe: Expectations, results and challenges. Paper presented at the 6th Triple Helix Conference, Singapore, 16-18 May 2007.
23. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
24. OECD. (2000). A new economy? Paris: OECD.
25. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421-432.
26. Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy, 28(8), 873-890.
27. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
28. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
29. THES. (2008). World University Rankings (2008). Times higher education supplement. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=142&pubCode=1& navcode=118.
30. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59-72.
31. van Looy, B., Du Plessis, M., Meyer, M., & Debackere, K. (2007). The impact of legislative framework conditions on the entrepreneurial activities of universities: An empirical assessment. Paper presented at the 6th Triple Helix Conference, Singapore, 16-18 May 2007.
32. Von Falck, A., & Schmaltz, C. (2005). University inventions: Classification and remuneration in Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, the US and Japan. IIC-International Review if Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 36, 912-927.
33. Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
34. Webster, A., & Packer, K. (1997). When worlds collide: Patents in public-sector research. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff (Eds.), Universities, the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (pp. 47-59). London: Pinter.
35. Wong, P.-K., & Singh, A. (forthcoming). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics.