Inefficiencies in markets for intellectual property rights: experiences of academic and public research institutions

The formal use of such intellectual property rights (IPR) as patents and registered copyright by universities has increased steadily in the last two decades. Mainstream arguments, embedded in economic theory and policy, advocating the use of IPR to protect academic research results are based on the view that IPR marketplaces work well and allow universities to reap significant benefits. However, there is a lack of evidence-based research to justify or critically evaluate these claims. Building upon an original survey of 46 universities and public research organizations in the United Kingdom, this study analyses the quality of the institutions underpinning the markets for patents and copyright, investigating potential inefficiencies that could lead to underperformance of the IPR system. These include ‘IPR market failures’ with respect to search processes and transparency; price negotiation processes; uncertainties in the perception of the economic value of IRP and the relationship with R&D cost. Further sources of underperformance may include ‘institutional failures’ with respect to enforcement and regulation. Particular attention is paid to the role of governance forms (e.g. alternative types of licensing agreements) through which IPR exchanges take place. We find that a high share of universities report market failures in IPR transactions and that the choice of IPR governance forms matter for the obstacles that are encountered. Given the importance of widely disseminating university research outcomes to foster innovation and economic development, the presence of inefficiencies in IPR markets suggests that such objectives could best be achieved by encouraging open distribution of knowledge, rather than privatization of academic knowledge

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?

Recent initiatives by a number of OECD governments suggest considerable interest in emulating the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, a piece of legislation that is widely credited with stimulating significant growth in university--industry technology transfer and research collaboration in theUS. We examine the effects of Bayh-Dole on university--industry collaboration and technology transfer in the US, emphasizing the lengthy history of both activities prior to 1980 and noting the extent to which these activities are rooted in the incentives created by the unusual scale and structure (by comparison with Western Europe or Japan) of the US higher education system. Efforts at “emulation” of the Bayh-Dole policy elsewhere in the OECD are likely to have modest success at best without greater attention to the underlying structural differences among the higher education systems of these nations.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43108/1/10961_2004_Article_5384361.pd

Stem Cell Research Funding Policies and Dynamic Innovation: A Survey of Open Access and Commercialization Requirements

# The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This article compares and contrasts the pressures of both open access data sharing and commercialization policies in the context of publicly funded embryonic stem cell research (SCR). First, normative guidelines of international SCR orga-nizations were examined. We then examined SCR funding guidelines and the project evaluation criteria of major funding organizations in the EU, the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, Canada and the United States. Our survey of policies revealed subtle pressures to commercialize research that include: in-creased funding availability for commercialization opportuni-ties, assistance for obtaining intellectual property rights (IPRs) and legislation mandating commercialization. In lieu of open access models, funders are increasingly opting for limited sharing models or “protected commons ” models that make the research available to researchers within the same region or those receiving the same funding. Meanwhile, there still is need for funding agencies to clarify and standardize terms such as “non-profit organizations ” and “for-profit research,” as more universities are pursuing for-profit or commercial opportunities. Keywords Stemcell research(SCR).Humanembryonicstem cells (hESC). Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Open access. Data sharing. Commercialization Abbreviations hESC human embryonic stem cells iPSC induced pluripotent stem cells IPRs intellectual property rights MTA material transfer agreement SCR stem cell research SLA simple letter agreement TTO technology transfer offic

Defining Tech Transfer

Technology transfer describes a formal transferring of new discoveries and innovations resulting from scientific research conducted at universities to the commercial sector. This article explores the reason why there has been tremendous growth in technology transfer programs, the benefits and successes of technology transfer, and how technology transfer has impacted universities.IC2 Institut

Texas Business Review, June 1998

Defining Tech Transfer; It's All in Your Head: The Promise of Intellectual PropertyBureau of Business Researc

Incentives and invention in universities

Using data on U.S. universities, we show that universities that give higher royalty shares to faculty scientists generate greater license income, controlling for university size, academic quality, research funding and other factors. We use pre-sample data on university patenting to control for the potential endogeneity of royalty shares. We find that scientists respond both to cash royalties and to royalties used to support their research labs, suggesting both pecuniary and intrinsic (research) motivations. The incentive effects appear to be larger in private universities than in public ones, and we provide survey evidence indicating this may be related to differences in the use of performance pay, government constraints, and local development objectives of technology license offices. Royalty incentives work both by raising faculty effort and sorting scientists across universities. The effect of incentives works primarily by increasing the quality (value) rather than the quantity of inventions

Collaborate and Innovate: The Impact of Academic Librarians on the Commercialization of University Technology

The University of Arizona Library, in collaboration with the campus commercialization unit, created a partnership that contributes to the early development of inventions in the commercialization pipeline. The library-commercialization business intelligence workgroup was incorporated into the overall campus commercialization business-development workflow in 2014 and is comprised of librarians and commercialization professionals working together to provide insight and decision support for development of commercialization strategies for inventions emerging from university research that aligns with market drivers. These efforts are recognized by university leadership as critical to the strategic plan of the university. This article discusses the impact of the workgroup and how the group of librarians contributed to the development of new companies, new licenses, and financial impact of economic development at a large land-grant university and larger community.No embargo.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]