Knowledge creation and diffusion of public science with intellectual property rights

Frontiers of Economics and Globalization

Volumn 2, Issue , 2008, Pages 199-232

  Thursby, Jerry ^a   Thursby, Marie ^a,b  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Intellectual property rights; Knowledge diffusion; Licenses; Patents; Public sector science

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053212977     PISSN: 15748715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S1574-8715(07)00006-1     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Stein, J.C. (2005), Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper 11542. Cambridge, MA.
2. Agrawal, A. (2006), Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 27 (1), 63-79.
3. Agrawal, A., Henderson, R. (2002), Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 (1), 44-60.
4. Argyres, N., Liebeskind, J. (1998), Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 35 (4), 427-454.
5. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A. (2001), Markets for Technology: Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Arrow, K. (1962), Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson, R. (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
7. Association of University Technology Managers (2004), Annual Survey.
8. Azoulay, P., Ding,W., Stuart, T. (2006), The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. Manuscript.
9. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T. (2007), The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (4), 599-623.
10. Benkler, Y. (2004), Commons-based strategies and the problems of patents. Science 305, 1110-1111.
11. Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E., Louis, K. (1996), Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences: An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334, 368-374.
12. Boettiger, S., Bennett, A. (2006), Bayh-Dole: If we knew then what we know now. Nature Biotechnology 24 (3), 320-324.
13. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., Montobbio, F. (2005), The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. CESPRI Working Paper 168. Center for Research on Innovation and Internationalization, University of Bocconi, Milan, Italy.
14. Campbell, E., Clarridge, B., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N., Blumenthal, D. (2002), Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association 287 (4), 473-479.
15. Cohen,W. (2005), Patents and appropriation: Concerns and evidence. Journal of Technology Transfer 30 (1-2), 57-71.
16. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., Walsh, J. (2000), Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7552. Cambridge, MA.
17. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N., Sampat, B. (2002), How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science 48 (1), 61-72.
18. Crespi, G., Geuna, A., Verspagen, B. (2006), University IPRs and knowledge transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient? Manuscript. Sussex University.
19. Dam, K. (1999), Intellectual Property and the Academic Enterprise. In: The Changing Character, Use and Protection of Intellectual Property, vol. 17. German-American Academic Council Foundation, Washington, DC.
20. Dasgupta, P., David, P. (1987), Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In: Feiwel, G. (Ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. New York University Press, New York.
21. Dasgupta, P., David, P. (1994), Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23, 486-521.
22. Dasgupta, P., Stiglitz, J. (1980), Uncertainty, industrial structure, and the speed of R&D. Bell Journal of Economics 11 (1), 1-28.
23. David, P. (2004), Can 'open science' be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? Journal of Theoretical and Institutional Economics 160, 1-26.
24. Dechenaux, E., Goldfarb, B., Shane, S., Thursby, M. (2006), Appropriability and commercialization: Evidence from MIT inventions. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9735. Cambridge, MA.
25. Dechenaux, E., Thursby, M., Thursby, J. (2007), Shirking, risk-sharing, and shelving: The role of university license contracts. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11128. Cambridge, MA.
26. Di Gregorio, D., Shane, S. (2003), Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy 32 (2), 209-227.
27. Eisenberg, R. (1987), Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale Law Journal 97 (2), 177-231.
28. Eisenberg, R. (1989), Patents and the progress of science-Exclusive rights and experimental use. University of Chicago Law Review 56 (3), 1017-1086.
29. Eisenberg, R. (1996), Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review 83, 1663-1727.
30. Eisenberg, R., Rai, A. (2006), Harnessing and sharing the benefits of state-sponsored research: Intellectual property rights and data-sharing in California's stem cell initiative. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 21 (3), 1186-1213.
31. Elfenbein, D. (2007), Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (4), 688-715.
32. Fabrizio, K., DiMinin, A. (2005), Commercializing the laboratory: The relationship between faculty patenting and publishing. Manuscript.
33. Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercoviz, J., Burton, R. (2002), Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science 48 (1), 105-121.
34. Galasso, A. (2006), Delay and settlement in patent litigation: The impact of fragmented property rights. Manuscript.
35. Gallini, N. (2002), The economics of patents: Lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (2), 131-154.
36. Gallini, N., Scotchmer, S. (2001), Intellectual property: When is it the best incentive system? In: Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., Stern, S. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
37. Gallini, N., Wright, B. (1990), Technology transfer under asymmetric information. RAND Journal of Economics 21 (1), 147-160.
38. Hagstrom, W. (1965), The Scientific Community. Basic Books, New York.
39. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. (2001), The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 8498. Cambridge, MA.
40. Heller, M., Eisenberg, R. (1998), Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science 280 (5364), 698-701.
41. Hellmann, T. (2007), The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (4), 624-647.
42. 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.
43. Hoppe, H., Ozdenoren, E. (2005), Intermediation in innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization 23 (5-6), 483-503.
44. Jaffe, A. (2000), The U.S. patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy 29, 531-557.
45. Jaffe, A., Lerner, J. (2001), Reinventing public R&D: Patent law and technology transfer from federal labs. RAND Journal of Economics 32, 167-198.
46. Jansen, C., Dillon, H. (1999), Where do the leads come from? Source data from six institutions. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 11, 51-65.
47. Jensen, R., Thursby, M. (2001), Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review 91 (1), 240-259.
48. Jensen, R., Thursby, M. (2004), The academic effects of patentable research. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 10758. Cambridge, MA.
49. Jensen, R., Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2003), Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: 'The best we can do with the St we get to work with'. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1271-1300.
50. Kamien, M.I. (1992), Patent licensing. In: Aumann, R., Hart, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Game Theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
51. Kitch, E. (1977), The nature and function of the patent system. Journal of Law and Economics 20 (2), 265-290.
52. Kortum, S., Lerner, J. (1998), Stronger protection or technological revolution: What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 48, 247-304.
53. Krimsky, S. (2003), Science in the Private Interest. Rowman Littlefield Publishing, Lanham, MD.
54. Lach, S., Schankerman, M. (2004), Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association 2 (2-3), 252-264.
55. Lanjouw, J. (1998), Patent protection in the shadow of infringement: Simulation estimations of patent value. Review of Economic Studies 65 (3), 671-710.
56. Lerner, J., Tirole, J. (2004), Efficient patent pools. American Economic Review 94, 681-711.
57. Levin, S., Stephan, P. (1991), Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review 81 (1), 114-132.
58. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R.,Winter, S. (1987), Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783-820.
59. Link, A., Siegel, D. (2005), Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance 11 (3), 169-181.
60. Machlup, F. (1958), An economic review of the patent system. In: Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Study 15, 85th Congress, 2nd Session. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
61. Macho-Stadler, I., Perez-Castrillo, D., Veugelers, R. (2007), Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology office. International Journal of Industrial Organization 25 (3), 483-510.
62. Maurer, S. (2006), Inside the anti-commons: Academic scientists' struggle to build a commercially self-supporting human mutations database, 1999-2001. Research Policy 35 (6), 839-853.
63. Mazzoleni, R. (2005), University patents, R&D competition, and social welfare. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 14 (6), 499-515.
64. Merges, R., Nelson, R.R. (1990), On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90 (4), 839-916.
65. Merges, R., Nelson, R.R. (1994), On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 25, 1-24.
66. Merton, R.C. (1973), The normative structure of science. In: Merton, R.C. (Ed.), The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
67. Mowery, D., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, A. (2001), The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy 30, 99-119.
68. Mowery, D., Nelson, R.R., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, A. (2004), Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: U.S. University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
69. Mowery, D., Sampat, B. (2001), University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980. Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (3), 781-814.
70. Mowery, D., Sampat, B. (2004), The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer 30 (1/2), 115-127.
71. Mowery, D., Ziedonis, A. (2002), Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy 31, 399-418.
72. Mowery, D., Sampat, B., Ziedonis, 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 (1), 73-89.
73. Mukherjee, A., Stern, S. (2005), Disclosure or secrecy? The economics of open science. Manuscript.
74. Murray, F. (2002), Innovation as overlapping scientific and technological trajectories: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy 31, 1389-1403.
75. Murray, F., Stern, S. (2006), When Ideas are not Free: The Impact of Patents on Scientific Research. Innovation Policy and the Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
76. Murray, F., Stern, S. (2007), 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 64 (2), 648-687.
77. Narin, F., Pinski, G., Gee, H. (1976), Structure of the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27 (1), 25-45.
78. Nelson, R.R. (1959), The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67, 297-306.
79. Noel, M., Schankerman, M. (2006), Strategic patenting and software innovation. Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper 5701. London.
80. Owen-Smith, J., Powell, W. (2001), To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 99-114.
81. Rai, A. (1999), Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwestern University Law Review 94 (1), 77-152.
82. Rai, A., Eisenberg, R. (2003), Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of medicine. Law and Contemporary Problems 66, 289-314.
83. Rai, A., Allison, J., Sampat, B., Crossman, C. (2006), University software ownership: Technology transfer or business as usual? Manuscript.
84. Reichman, J., Uhlir, P. (2003), A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems 66, 336-341.
85. Rosell, C., Agrawal, A. (2006), University patenting: Estimating the diminishing breadth of knowledge diffusion and consumption. Manuscript.
86. Sampat, B., Mowery, D., Ziedonis, A. (2003), Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 1371-1390.
87. Schankerman, M. (1998), How valuable is patent protection? Estimates by technology field. RAND Journal of Economics 29 (1), 77-107.
88. Schmiemann, M., Durvy, J.-N. (2003), New approaches to technology transfer from publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (1), 9-15.
89. Schumpeter, J. (1939), Business Cycles. McGraw Hill, New York.
90. Scotchmer, S. (2005), Innovation and Incentives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
91. Shane, S. (2004), Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing 19, 127-151.
92. Shane, S., Somaya, D. (2007), The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63 (4), 739-755.
93. Shapiro, C. (2006), Injunction, hold-up, and patent royalties. Manuscript.
94. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Link, A. (2002), Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy 32, 27-48.
95. Sine, W., Shane, S., Di Gregorio, D. (2003), The Halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science 49 (4), 478-496.
96. Stephan, P. (1996), The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34, 1199-1235.
97. Stephan, P., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A.J., Black, G. (2007), Who's patenting in universities? The Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 (2), 71-99.
98. Stephens, A. (2005), Do most academic institutions lose money on technology transfer? Presentation at the 2005 Meetings of the Technology Transfer Society.
99. Stern, S. (2004), Do Scientists Pay to be Scientists? Management Science 50, 835-853.
100. Stokes, D. (1997), Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
101. Thursby, J., Kemp, S. (2002), Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy 31, 109-124.
102. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2002), Who is selling the Ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48 (1), 90-104.
103. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2003a), Industry/university licensing: Characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (3-4), 207-213.
104. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2003b), University licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act. Science 301 (5636), 1052.
105. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2004a), Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy 22 (2), 162-178.
106. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2004b), Buyer and seller views of university-industry licensing. In: Stein, D. (Ed.), Buying In or Selling Out? Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
107. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2005a), Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer 30 (4), 343-353.
108. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2005b), Pros and cons of faculty participation in licensing. In: Libecap, G. (Ed.), University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and Intellectual Property. Elsevier, New York.
109. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2007a), Patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. In: Ehrenberg, R., Stephan, P. (Eds.), Science and the University. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
110. Thursby, J., Thursby, M. (2007b), University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 (4), 1-20.
111. Thursby, J., Jensen, R., Thursby, M. (2001), Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (1-2), 59-72.
112. Thursby, M., Thursby, J., Gupta-Mukherjee, S. (2007), Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life-cycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 64 (4), 577-578.
113. Valentin, F., Jensen, R. (2006), Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. Manuscript.
114. Walsh, J., Arora, A., Cohen, W. (2003a), The patenting and licensing of research tools and biomedical innovation. In: Cohen, W.M., Merrill, S. (Eds.), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
115. Walsh, J., Arora, A., Cohen, W. (2003b), Working through the patent problem. Science 299, 1021.
116. Walsh, J., Cho, C., Cohen,W. (2005), Patents, material transfers and access to research inputs in biomedical research. Report to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Inventions.
117. Washburn, J. (2000), The kept university? Atlantic Monthly 285, 35.
118. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Brewer, M. (1998), Intellectual capital and the birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises. American Economic Review 88, 290-306.