References
Adams, J. D., E. P. Chiang, and J. L. Jensen. 2003. The influence of federal laboratory R&D on industrial research. The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4):1003-1020.
Allison, J. R. and L. L. Ouellette (2016). How courts adjudicate patent definiteness and disclosure. Duke Law Journal 65(4):609-695.
Arora, A., W. Cohen, and J. Walsh. 2016. The acquisition and commercialization of invention in American manufacturing: Incidence and impact. Research Policy 45:1113-1128.
Bagley, M. 2006. Academic discourse and proprietary rights: Putting patents in their proper place. Boston College Law Review 47(2), No. 2.
Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. 2013. The impact of genomics on the U.S. economy. https://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/2013BattelleReportImpact-of-Genomics-on-the-US-Economy.pdf.
Belenzon, N., and M. Schankerman. 2009. University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. Journal of Law and Economics 52(1):111-144.
Bercovitz, J., and M. Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19:69-89.
Bercovitz, J., M. Feldman, I. Feller, and R. Burton. 2001. Organizational structure as determinants of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26:21-35.
Bessen, J., and M. J. Meurer. 2009. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Beyer, R. A., T. Fong, M. B. Allan, J. Laura, M. P. Milazzo, R. G. Deen, and W. M. Burke. 2018. No to NOSA, Yes to Mainstream Licenses. Sagan Center at the SETI Institute. http://surveygizmoresponseuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/fileuploads/15647/4054745/52-84143c3de87f92bed8d9d85e21dae32f_BeyerRossEtal.pdf.
Buchanan, J. M., and Y. J. Yoon. 2000. Symmetric tragedies: Commons and anti-commons. Journal of Law and Economics 43:1-13.
Burk, D. L., and M. A. Lemley. 2009. The Patent Crisis and How Courts Can Solve It. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
Chander, A., and M. Sunder. 2004. The Romance of the Public Domain. UC Davis Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13. https://ssrn.com/abstract=562301.
Chandler, J. P. 1991. Protection of U.S. competitiveness in the international software markets: Reexamining the question of copyrighting government-created software. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 25:387.
Chien, C. V., and J. Y. Wu. 2018. Decoding patentable subject matter. Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1.
Choi, H., H. E. Lee, D. S. Siegel, D. Waldman, and M. S. Mitchell. 2020. Assessing differences between university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scientists in technology transfer. Working Paper.
Choudhry, V., and T. A. Ponzio. 2020. Modernizing federal technology transfer metrics. Journal of Technology Transfer 45:544-559.
Cohen, J., and M. Lemley. 2001. Patent scope and innovation in the software industry. California Law Review 89:1-57.
Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson, and J. P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48(1):1-23.
Cohen, W., H. Sauermann, and P. Stephan. 2020. Not in the job description: The commercial activities of academic scientists and engineers. Management Science, INFORMS, 66(9):4108-4117.
Colaianni, A., S. Chandrasekharan, and R. Cook-Deegan. 2010. Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing and carrier screening for Tay-Sachs and Canavan disease. Genetics in Medicine 12(4):S5-S14.
Colyvas, J., M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R. R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg, and B. N. Sampat. 2002. How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science 48(1):61-72.
Conover, J., T. Slaper, T. Hall, and M. Kinghorn. 2010. The Economic Contribution of the Department of the Navy Technology Transfer Program. Bloomington: Indiana University Kelley School of Business. https://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/studies/t2.pdf.
Contigiani, A., and D. H. Hsu. 2019, January 29. How trade secrets hurt innovation. Harvard Business Review.
Contigiani, A., D. H. Hsu, and I. Barankay. 2018. Trade secrets and innovation: Evidence from the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine. Strategic Management Journal 39(11):2921-2942.
Contreras, J. L. 2011. Bermuda’s legacy: Patents, policy and the design of the genome commons. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 12:61.
Contreras, J. L. 2013. Confronting the crisis in scientific publishing: Latency, licensing, and access. Santa Clara Law Review 53:491.
Contreras, J. L. 2017. Leviathan in the commons: Biomedical data and the state. In Governing Medical Knowledge Commons, K. Strandburg, B. Frischmann, and M. Madison, Eds. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Contreras, J. L., and B. M. Knoppers. 2018. The genomic commons. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19:429-453.
Contreras, J., and J. H. Reichman. 2015. Sharing by design: Data and decentralized commons. Science 350(6266):1312-1314.
Cook-Deegan, R., and C. Heaney. 2010. Patents in genomics and human genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 11:383.
Coyle, D., S. Diepeveen, J. Wdowin, L. Kay, and J. Tennison. 2020. The Value of Data. Bennett Institute for Public Policy, Cambridge, in partnership with the Open Data Institute. https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/Value_of_data_Policy_Implications_Report_26_Feb_ok4noWn.pdf.
DOD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2020. DOD Freedom of Information Act Handbook. https://open.defense.gov/transparency/FOIA/FOIA-handbook.
Dolmans, S. A. M., S. Shane, J. Jankowski, I. M. Reymen, and A. G. L. Romme. 2016. The evaluation of university inventions: Judging a book by its cover? Journal of Business Research 69(11):4998-5001.
Dratler, J. R. 1985. Trade secret law: An impediment to trade in computer software. Santa Clara Computer and High-Technology Law Journal 1(1):27.
Eisenberg, R. S. 1990. Patenting the human genome. Emory Law Journal 39:721.
Executive Office of the President. 2011. Presidential Memorandum—Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses. Washington, DC. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/28/presidentialmemorandum-accelerating-technology-transfer-and-commerciali.
Executive Office of the President. 2013. Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation. Washington, DC. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf.
Executive Office of the President. 2018. President’s Management Agenda. Washington, DC. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ThePresidentsManagementAgenda.pdf.
Fagundes, D., and A. Perzanowski. 2020. Abandoning copyright. William and Mary Law Review. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/2060.
Feldman, R. 2018. Artificial intelligence: The importance of trust & distrust. Green Bag, 21(3).
Feldman, R., and M. A. Lemley. 2018. The sound and fury of patent activity. Minnesota Law Review 103:1793.
Feldman, R., B. Change Rowe, and R. Oral. 2020. Viral licensing: Ensuring the public interest when taxpayers fund pharmaceutical research. Santa Clara Law Review 59(3).
Former, J. 2019. Machines as the new Oompa-Loompas: Trade secrecy, the cloud, machine learning, and automation. NYU Law Review 94:706.
Frakes, M. D., and M. F. Wasserman. 2017. Is the time allocated to review patent applications including examiners to grant invalid patents? Evidence from microlevel application data. The Review of Economics and Statistics 99(3):550-563.
FSF (Free Software Foundation). 2020. Various Licenses and Comments about Them. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NASA.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1988. Technology Transfer—Constraints Perceived by Federal Laboratory and Agency Officials. Briefing Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives.
GAO. 1990. Technology Transfer—Copyright Law Constrains Commercialization of Some Federal Software. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Administration of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.
GAO. 1991. Copyright Law Constraints on the Transfer of Certain Federal Computer Software with Commercial Applications. GAO Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Gellman, R. M. 1994. Twin evils: Government copyright and copyright-like controls over government information. Syracuse Law Review 45:999.
Gingrich, N. 2018. Federal office of research and technology applications survey results. NIST Technology Transfer Brief 1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Graham, S., and S. Vishnubhakat. 2013. Of smart phone wars and software patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(1):67-86.
Ham, R. M., and D. Mowery. 1995. Improving industry-government cooperative R&D. Issues in Science and Technology Summer:67-73.
Heller, M. A., and R. S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter Innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical research. Science 280(5364):698-701.
Hemel, D., and L. L. Ouellette. 2017. Bayh-Dole beyond borders. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4:282.
Hollander, A. J. 2003. Patenting computer data structures: The ghost, the machine and the federal circuit. Duke Law & Technology Review. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=dltr.
Hughes, M. E., S. V. Howieson, G. Walejko, N. Gupta, S. Jonas, A. Brenner, D. Holmes, E. Shyu, and S. Shipp. 2011. Technology transfer and commercialization landscape of the federal laboratories. Paper NS P-4728. Alexandria, VA: IDA/Science and Technology Institute.
IAWGTT (The Interagency Workgroup on Technology Transfer). 2012, November. Accelerating Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses. Revised technology transfer metrics in response to the October 28, 2011 presidential memorandum. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/MetricsPaper-FINAL1-29-13.pdf.
IITRI (Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute). 1994. The Congressional Ada Mandate. http://archive.adaic.com/pol-hist/policy/mandate.txt.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
IOM, NASEM, and NRC (Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and National Research Council). 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/5040.
Jensen, K., and F. Murray. 2005. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310(5746):239-240.
Jensen, R., Thursby, J., and T. Marie. 2003. The 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(9):1271-1300.
Katyal, S. K. 2020. The paradox of source code secrecy. Cornell Law Review 104(1183):1194.
Keller, S., G. Korkmaz, C. Robbins, and S. Shipp. 2018. Opportunities to observe and measure intangible inputs to innovation: Definitions, operationalization, and examples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(50):12638-12645.
Lach, S., and M. Schankerman. 2004. Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association 2:252-264.
Lally, B. 2019, December 5. Presentation to National Academies Committee on Accelerating Commercialization at the Federal Laboratories. Washington, DC.
Lemley, M. A. 2011. The surprising virtues of treating trade secrets as IP rights. In The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, R. C. Dreyfuss and K. J. Strandburg, Eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, p. 109.
Lemley, M. A. 2013. Software patents and the return of functional claiming. Wisconsin Law Review 905.
Levine, D. S. 2011. The impact of trade secrecy on public transparency. In The Law and Theory of Trade Secrecy: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (), R. C. Dreyfuss and K. J. Strandburg, Eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, p. 406.
Link, A. N., and D. S. Siegel. 2005. Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance 11:169-182.
Link, A. N., Z. T. Oliver, G. B. Jordan, and C. Hayter. 2019. Overview and Analysis of Technology Transfer from Federal Agencies and Laboratories. RTI Project Number 0214999. RTI International.
Marx, M., and L. Fleming. 2020. Non-compete agreements: Barriers to entry . . . and exit? Innovation Policy and the Economy 20.
Milgrim, R. M., and E. E. Benson. n.d. Milgrim on Trade Secrets. New York: Matthew Bender Elite Products.
Miller, A. R. 1993. Copyright protection for computer programs, databases, and computer-generated works: Is anything new since CONTU? Harvard Law Review 106:97.
Miller, H. M., L. Richardson, and S. R. Koontz, J. Loomis, and L. Koontz. 2013. Users, uses, and value of Landsat satellite imagery—Results from the 2012 survey of users. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 1269:51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131269.
Millien, R. 2020, February 17. Six years after Alice: 61.8% of U.S. patents issued in 2019 were “software-related”—Up 21.6% from 2018. IP Watchdog. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/02/17/six-years-alice-61-8-u-s-patentsissued-2019-software-related-21-6-2018/id=118986.
Mossinghoff, G. J., and R. F. Allnutt. 1967. Patent infringement in government procurement: A remedy without a right. Notre Dame Law Review 42(1).
Mowery, D. C. 2003. Using cooperative research and development agreements as S&T indicators: What do we have and what would we like? Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15:189-205.
Mowery, D. C., R. R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A. A. Ziedonis. 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.
MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure). n.d. https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/608_05.html.
Murphy, K. 2019, December 5. Presentation to National Academies Committee on Accelerating Commercialization at the Federal Laboratories. Washington, DC.
Nagaraj, A. 2018, October 22. The Private Impact of Public Information: Landsat Satellite Maps and Gold Exploration. https://abhishekn.com/files/nagaraj_landsat_oct2018.pdf.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2018. Open Source Software Policy Options for NASA Earth and Space Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NHGRI (National Human Genome Research Institute). 1996. NHGRI Policy Regarding Intellectual Property of Human Genomic Sequence. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2005, April 11. Best Practices for the Licensing of Genomic Inventions: Final Notice, 70 Federal Register 70(68):18413.
Nimmer, D. (n.d.) 1 Nimmer on Copyright. New York: Matthew Bender Elite Products.
Nimmer, D. (n.d.) 4 Nimmer on Copyright. New York: Matthew Bender Elite Products.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2019a. Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer Fiscal Year 2016: Summary Report to the President and the Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2019/10/30/fy2016_fed_lab_tech_transfer_rept_fina_9-10-19.pdf.
NIST. 2019b. NIST Special Publication 1234: Return on Investment Initiative for Unleashing American Innovation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1234.
Nodiff, M. J. 1984. Copyrightability of works of the federal and state governments under the 1976 Act. Saint Louis University Law Journal 29:91.
NRC (National Research Council). 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011. Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13001.
NSB and NSF (National Science Board and National Science Foundation). 2020. Science and Engineering Indicators 2020: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, Figure 28. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201.
O’Connor, A. C., M. P. Gallaher, K. Clark-Sutton, D. Lapidus, Z. T. Oliver, T. J. Scott, D. W. Wood, M. A. Gonzalez, E. G. Brown, and J. Fletcher. 2019. Economic Benefits of the Global Positioning System (GPS). RTI Report No. 0215471. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
Okediji, R. L. 2016. Government as owner of intellectual property: Considerations for public welfare in an era of big data. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 18:331.
OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). 2020, March 23. White House Announces New Partnership to Unleash U.S. Supercomputing Resources to Fight COVID-19. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/white-houseannounces-new-partnership-unleash-u-s-supercomputing-resources-fight-covid-19.
Powell, W. W., and J. Owen-Smith. 1998. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(2):253-277.
Price, S., and D. S. Siegel. 2019. Assessing the role of the federal government in the development of new products, industries, and companies: Case study evidence since World War II. Annals of Science and Technology Policy 3(4). DOI: 10.1561/110.00000016.
Rai, A. K. 2012. Patent validity across the executive branch: Ex ante foundations for policy development. Duke Law Journal 61:1237.
Rai, A. K., and R. S. Eisenberg. 2003. Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems 66:289.
Rai, A., J. Allison, and B. Sampat. 2009. University software ownership and litigation: A first examination. North Carolina Law Review 87:1519-1570.
Raymond, E. S. 1999. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly and Associates, Inc. (Revised 2001).
Reichman, J. H., and P. F. Uhlir. 2003. A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems 66:315.
Reilly, S., and S. Waxman. 2016. Licensing technology developed with public funds. Landslide 9(2):42-47.
Reinecke, J. D. 2019. Is the Supreme Court’s patentable subject matter test overly ambiguous: An empirical test. Utah Law Review 2019:581.
Saltiel, J. 2019, August. In the courts: Five years after Alice—Five lessons learned from the treatment of software patents in litigation. WIPO Magazine.
Samuelson, P. 1984. CONTU revisited: The case against copyright protection for computer programs in machine-readable form. Duke Law Journal 663.
Sapienza, H. J., and M. A. Korsgaard. 1996. Procedural justice in entrepreneur-investor relations. Academy of Management Journal, 39:544-574.
Sapienza, H. J., M. A. Korsgaard, P. K. Goulet, and J. P. Hoogendam. 2000. Effects of agency risks and procedural justice on board processes in venture capital-backed firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12: 331–351.
Shane, S., S. A. M. Dolmans, J. Jankowski, I. M. M. J. Reymen, and A. G. L. Romme. 2015. “Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs?” The Journal of Technology Transfer 40(2):273–292.
Sichelman, T. 2010. Commercializing patents. Stanford Law Review 59(1).
Snyder, B., and J. W. Thomas. 2014. GOGOs, GOCOs, and FFRDCs…Oh My! Chicago, IL: Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer.
Stevens, A., G. Johnson, and P. Sanberg. 2011. The role of patents and commercialization in the tenure and promotion process. Technology & Innovation 13(3).
Straub, C. L., S. R. Koontz, and J. B. Loomis. 2019. Economic Valuation of Landsat Imagery: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1112. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191112.
Thomas, J. R. 2014. The Role of Trade Secrets in Innovation Policy. Congressional Research Service Report. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41391.pdf.
Thursby, J. G., and M. C. Thursby. (2007). University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4):620-639.
Trajtenberg, M. 1990. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics 21(1), Spring.
Tran, J. L. 2016. Two years after Alice v. CLS Bank. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 98:354.
Tran, J. L., and J. S. Benevento. 2019. Alice at five. Patently-O Patent Law Journal 25.
Tripp, S., and M. Grueber. 2013. Economic Impact of the Human Genome Project. Battelle Memorial Institute. http://www.battelle.org/docs/default-document-library/economic_impact_of_the_human_genome_project.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
U.S. Copyright Office. 2017. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. § 721; 721.5.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1976, September 3. Copyright Law Revision. Report No. 94-1476.
U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration of the Committee on the Judiciary. 1992. Hearings on H.R. 191, Technology Transfer Improvements Act of 1991 (including Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy Deborah Wince-Smith).
U.S. Senate. 1975, November 20. Copyright Law Revision Report No. 94-473.
Veletsianos, G., and R. Kimmons. 2012. Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 13(4):166. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1313.
Williams, H. L. 2013. Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. Journal of Political Economy 121(1).
Willinksy, J. 2006. The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zucker, L., and M. Darby. 2001. Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: Evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1).
