UK universities look beyond the patent policy discourse in their intellectual property strategies

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 254-268

  Andersen, Birgitte ^a,b   Rossi, Federica ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; LEGISLATION; TECHNOLOGY POLICY; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79958797732     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/016502611X12849792159236     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Agrawal, A and R Henderson 2002, Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 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(1), 57-69.
3. Arrow, K 1962 Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, R Nelson ed., pp 609-625. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Bachmann, R 2006 Trust, power and control in transorganizational relations. In Organizational Trust. A Reader, R M Kramer ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
5. Baghurst, D, T Pollard, C Helmers and M Rogers 2009. A literature review on the efficiency and effectiveness of university intellectual property IP models for the generation, identification and exploitation of 'soft' non-patent and non-trademark IP. Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy Report. London: UK Intellectual Property Office.
6. Bekkers, R and I M Bodas Freitas 2008 Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837-1853.
7. Berman, E P 2008. Why did universities start patenting? Institution- building and the road to the Bayh-Dole Act. Social Studies of Science, 38(6), 835-871.
8. Bessen, J E and M J Meurer 2005. The Patent Litigation Explosion. Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 05-18. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=831685, last accessed 22 March 2011.
9. Blumenthal, D, M Gluck, K Seashore Louis, M Stoto and D Wise 1986. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science, 232(4756), 1361-1366.
10. Bruneel, J, P D'Este, A Neely and A Salter 2009. The search for talent and technology, AIM research paper. London: Imperial College London.
11. Campbell-Kelly, M and DD Garcia-Swartz 2008. Pragmatism not ideology: IBM's love affair with open source software. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081613, last accessed 22 March 2010.
12. Cockburn, I 2007. Is the market for technology working well? Obstacles to licensing and ways to overcome them. Paper presented at Conference on Economics of Technology Policy, 17-22 June 2007, Monte Verità, Italy.
13. Cohen, W, R Nelson and J Walsh 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
14. Coriat, B and F Orsi 2002. Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States. Origins, content and problems. Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1491-1507.
15. Crespi, G, A Geuna and B Verspagen 2007. University IPRs and Knowledge Transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient?, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 154, University of Sussex, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research. Available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/154.html last accessed 22 March 2011.
16. David, P A and J S Shapiro 2008. Community-based production of open source software: what do we know about the developers who participate?, Available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/08-003.html last accessed 22 March /2011.
17. D'Este, P and M Perkmann 2007. Why do academics collaborate with industry? A study of the relationship between motivations and channels of interaction. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, held 18-20 June 2007, Copenhagen, Denmark.
18. Eisenberg, R S 1996. Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review, 82(8), 1663-1727.
19. Geuna, A and L J J Nesta 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.
20. Göransson, B, R Maharajh and U Schmoch 2009. New challenges for universities beyond education and research. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 83-84.
21. Graham, S J H and D Somaya 2006. Vermeers and Rembrandts in the same attic: complementarity between copyright and trademark leveraging strategies in software. TIGER Working Paper. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
22. Graham, S J H and T Sichelman 2008. Why do startups patent? University of California, Berkeley Working Paper. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
23. Granstrand, O 1999. Economics and Management of Intellectual Property. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
24. Grassmann, O, W C Rumsch and E Ruetsche 2009. R&D reputation and corporate brand value. Research-Technology Management, 52(4), 16-19.
25. Hall, B H and R H Ziedonis 2001. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-95. Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101-128.
26. HEFCE 2007. Higher education-business and community interaction survey, report, July 2007/17. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
27. Hicks, D, T Breitzman, D Olivastro and K Hamilton 2001. The changing composition of innovative activity in the US - a portrait based on patent analysis. Research Policy, 30(4), 681-703.
28. IBM 2006. Building a new IP marketplace: A Global Innovation Outlook 2.0, Innovation Outlook Report, IP marketplace. IBM.
29. Jaffe, A B, M Trajtenberg and R Henderson 1993. Geographical localisation of knowledge spillovers, as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
30. Klevorick, A, R Levin, R Nelson, S Winter, R Gilbert and Z Griliches 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783-831.
31. Landry, R, N Amara and M Ouimet 2007. Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561-592.
32. Lissoni, F, P Lotz, J Schovsbo and A Treccani 2009. Academic patenting and the professor's privilege: evidence on Denmark from the KEINS database. Science and Public Policy, 36(8), 595-607.
33. Litan, R E, L Mitchell and E J Reedy 2007. Commercializing university innovations: alternative approaches, NBER Working Paper May 2007. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=976005, last accessed 22 March 2011.
34. Macdonald, S 2009. Seducing the goose: patenting by UK universities, mimeo. Available at http://www.stuartmacdonald.org.uk/pdfdownloads.htm last accessed 22 March 2011.
35. Mansfield, E, M Schwartz and S Wagner 1981. Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study. Economic Journal, 91, 907-918.
36. Mazzoleni, R and R R Nelson 1998. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27(3), 273-284.
37. Merges, R and R Nelson 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 90(1), 839-961.
38. Montagnani, M L 2009. Open-source software, patents and royalty- free licensing, Conference Paper, 4th Annual Conference of the EPIP Association, held 24-25 September 2009, Bologna, Italy. Available at www.epip.eu/conferences/epip04/files/MONTAGNANI_Marialilla.pdf last accessed 22 March 2011.
39. Mowery, D and B Sampat 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1), 115-127.
40. Nelson, R R 2006. Reflections of David Teece's Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), 1107-1109.
41. Plant, A 1934. The economic theory concerning patents for inventions. Economica, 1, New Series, 30-51.
42. Póvoa, L and M Rapini 2010. Technology transfer from universities and public research institutes to firms in Brazil: what is transferred and how the transfer is carried out. Science and Public Policy, 37(2), 147-159
43. Quah, D 1998. A weightless economy, UNESCO Courier, December, 18-21.
44. Ramello, G B and F Silva 2006. Appropriating signs and meaning: the elusive economics of trademark. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(6), 937-963.
45. Rivette, K and D Kline 2000. Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School University Press.
46. Schacht, W 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the Commercialization of Technology, CRS Report for US Congress.
47. Sorensen, J and D Chambers 2008 Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated-defining an access metric. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 534-547.
48. Teece, D J 1986 Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305.
49. Teece, D J 2006 Reflections on profiting from innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131-1146.