Furthering America's Research Enterprise (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix B: U.S. Universities and Industrial Innovation: An Interactive Relationship Producing Economic Value from Research
Appendix B: U.S. Universities and Industrial Innovation: An Interactive Relationship Producing Economic Value from Research
Pages 155-176
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 155... ...
Indeed, industrial research may lead and influence the agenda of academic research in some fields, as was the case in the early stages of research on lightemitting diodes (LEDs) and semiconductors (Mowery, 2011)
|
From page 156... ...
university research with a long history of university-industry collaboration. Industry respondents consider few fields of university basic science research, aside from chemistry, as relevant to their innovative activities.4 Solid-State Laboratory, had recently apprenticed Gibbons to William Shockley.
|
From page 157... ...
. Pharmaceutical executives assigned greater importance than R&D managers from other industries to patents and license agreements involving universities and public laboratories, but pharmaceutical industry respondents, like those from other industries, rated research publications and conferences as a more important source of information than patents and licenses.
|
From page 158... ...
But these studies do not directly compare the effects of links between star scientists and firms with the effects on firms of licensing university intellectual property. In many cases, the faculty consultant and the licensed technology are likely to be complements, since the star scientist may be the developer of the technol
|
From page 159... ...
A study of faculty consulting and patenting by Thursby and Thursby (2007) develops a different perspective on the relationship between faculty consulting and university technology licensing, focusing on the substantial fraction (nearly 38 percent)
|
From page 160... ...
FACULTY ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SCHOLARLY PRODUCTIVITY Although the above findings on patenting and productivity shed considerable light on the relationship between two important channels for university-industry interaction, an equally important issue, and one on which little research has yet been published, concerns the relationship between faculty entrepreneurial activity (including but by no means restricted to consulting) and scholarly productivity.
|
From page 161... ...
Although Zucker and Darby include faculty participation in SABs as one of their measures of linkage between star scientists and firms, the Ding and Choi analysis includes a much broader sample of firms, faculty, and universities; compares the participation of faculty in SABs with their involvement as firm founders; and examines the relationship between both types of entrepreneurial activity (which in fact differ substantially in content and time demands) and faculty research productivity.
|
From page 162... ...
, little is known about the relationship between technology licensing and the formation, growth, or survival of such firms. Little information exists, for example, on the share of academic spin-offs that are also technology licensees, and the AUTM data suggest that such spin-offs account for a small share of all licensees of university patents.
|
From page 163... ...
For financially pressed universities, reduced growth in federal research funding increased the attractiveness of the potential revenues associated with licensing these research advances. Interest in patent licensing revenues among faculty and administrators grew in parallel with their dissatisfaction with the performance of the leading institutional "agent" charged with responsibility for handling many universities' patenting and licensing transactions -- the Research Corporation.
|
From page 164... ...
housed academic medical centers that were the locus of significant basic research advances in the field of molecular biology. In contrast to many basic research advances, these discoveries appeared to leading pharmaceutical firms and other enterprises to hold enormous commercial promise, creating a potentially strong and lucrative market for licenses to biomedical intellectual property.
|
From page 165... ...
476) , in response to HEW's review of its patent policies, "universities got upset and complained to Congress." A former Purdue University patent attorney, Norman Latker, who had been an architect of the changes in HEW's patent policies in 1968 that led to the creation of IPAs, was fired from HEW after denouncing the agency's 11 According to the testimony of Comptroller General Elmer Staats during the Bayh-Dole hearings, the purpose of the HEW review was "to make sure that assignment of patent rights to universities and research institutes did not stifle competition in the private sector in those cases where competition could bring the fruits of research to the public faster and more economically" (U.S.
|
From page 166... ...
Support is now building for the Bayh-Dole patent bill, and Latker's return to the HEW is seen by many university researchers and patent transfer fans, to whom Latker is something of a hero, as a shot in the arm for their cause." 13 According to Katz and Ordover (1990) , at least 14 congressional bills passed during the 1980s focused on strengthening domestic and international protection for intellectual property rights, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit created in 1982 has upheld patent rights in roughly 80 percent of the cases argued before it, a considerable increase from the pre‑1982 rate of 30 percent for the federal bench.
|
From page 167... ...
. The increased share of the biomedical disciplines within overall federal academic R&D funding, the advances in biomedical science that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, and industry's interest in the results of this biomedical research all affected the growth of university patenting during this period (Mowery, 2007)
|
From page 168... ...
Among other effects, the creation of incentives for faculty to patent is likely to increase significantly the operating expenses of university technology licensing offices that must bear the costs of prosecuting an expanded flow of patent applications, many of which may cover inventions of limited technological significance and commercial potential.
|
From page 169... ...
The goals of institutional technology licensing programs also must be consistent with the metrics used by the institution to evaluate and reward licensing office staff. Yet despite these trade-offs, as well as the relatively modest scale of net revenues at many university technology licensing offices, a recent survey revealed that technology licensing officers regard licensing revenues as the most important goal of their activities (Jensen and Thursby, 2001)
|
From page 170... ...
. Large U.S.-based corporations have become so disheartened and disgusted with the situation they are now working with foreign universities, especially the elite institutions in France, Russia and China, which are more than willing to offer extremely favorable intellectual property terms.17 A more sweeping critique was presented at a 2003 conference organized by the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable at the National Academy of Sciences, as described by Mowery (2007)
|
From page 171... ...
Furthermore, a large number of conflicts 18 The "Open Collaboration Principles" cover "…just one type of formal collaboration that can be used when appropriate and will co-exist with other models, such as sponsored research, consortia and other types of university/industry collaborations, where the results are intended to be proprietary or publicly disseminated." According to the "Principles," "The intellectual property created in the collaboration [between industry and academic researchers] must be made available for commercial and academic use by every member of the public free of charge for use in open source software, software related industry standards, software interoperability and other publicly available programs as may be agreed to be the collaborating parties.
|
From page 172... ...
A similar trade-off between maximizing licensing revenues and obtaining industry research funding is apparent in the creation in 2003 of the Intellectual Property and Industry Research Alliances Office in the University of California, Berkeley licensing office, which absorbed the established Office of Technology Licensing and a new Industry Alliances Office, charged with overseeing the negotiation of sponsored-research agreements with industry. Moreover, the Berkeley licensing office, along with other University of California technology licensing offices, has implemented a new policy recognizing the differences among industries in the value (and likely licensing income)
|
From page 173... ...
universities and innovation in industry throughout the 20th and 21st centuries has relied on a number of different channels, ranging from the training of students to faculty consulting, publication of research advances, and industry-sponsored research, among others. These channels operate in parallel and are interdependent.
|
From page 174... ...
They also should attempt to account for the full breadth of channels through which university research influences industrial innovation, including the training and placement of students, faculty research publications, faculty- or student-founded firms, patents, and licenses. Given the lack of data covering these various channels for most U.S.
|
From page 175... ...
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable.
|
From page 176... ...
. Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing and the Cohen/Boyer Cloning Patents.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.