IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v30y2005i3p263-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entrepreneurship and University Licensing

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Brouwer

Abstract

Outside invention has gained in importance as universities are actively seeking commercialization of their inventions since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act. The paper analyzes the incentives to invent for outside and inside inventors. It is shown that outside inventors have greater incentives to invent than incumbents. Outside inventors can always fully appropriate the gains from invention irrespective of market structures and firm behaviour. Moreover, outside invention prompts incumbents to commercialize an invention in contrast to inside invention. Embryonic inventions could best be commercialized by new enterprises due to the uncertainty of their outcomes. Cooperative invention could boost consumer welfare but constitutes a lackluster incentive to invent. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Brouwer, 2005. "Entrepreneurship and University Licensing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 263-270, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:30:y:2005:i:3:p:263-270
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-005-0929-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-005-0929-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-005-0929-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mowery, David C, 1990. "The Development of Industrial Research in U.S. Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 345-349, May.
    2. Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, 1998. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Tale of University Licensing," NBER Working Papers 6698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Donald Siegel & David Waldman & Albert Link, 1999. "Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study," NBER Working Papers 7256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Néstor Duch-Brown & Martí Parellada-Sabata & Jose Polo-Otero, 2010. "Economies of scale and scope of university research and technology transfer: a flexible multi-product approach," Working Papers 2010/51, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    2. Jose Polo & Nèstor Duch & Marti Parellada, 2011. "Scale and scope of university technology transfer: A flexible multiproduct approach," ERSA conference papers ersa10p613, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Dolores Modic & Borut Lužar & Tohru Yoshioka-Kobayashi, 2023. "Structure of university licensing networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 901-932, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus, 2001. "Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 463, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 26 May 2002.
    2. Réjean Landry & Nabil Amara & Mathieu Ouimet, 2007. "Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 561-592, December.
    3. Djordje Djokovic & Vangelis Souitaris, 2008. "Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 225-247, June.
    4. Christine Greenhalgh & Padraig Dixon, 2002. "The Economics of Intellectual Property: A Review to Identify Themes for Future Research," Economics Series Working Papers 135, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus & Rosenberg, Nathan, 2001. "Demand vs. Supply Driven Innovations: US and Swedish Experiences in Academic Entrepreneurship," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 0436, Stockholm School of Economics.
    6. Moshirian, Fariborz, 2001. "Financial systems in the new millennium," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(4-5), pages 315-320, December.
    7. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    8. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
    9. Bronwyn H. Hall & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2003. "Universities as Research Partners," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 485-491, May.
    10. Michael L. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2010. "Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 143-164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Heidrun C. Hoppe & Emre Ozdenoren, 2002. "Intermediation in Innovation," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-11, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    12. Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker & Andrew Wang, 2003. "Universities, Joint Ventures, and Success in the Advanced Technology Program," NBER Working Papers 9463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Mike Wright & Evila Piva & Simon Mosey & Andy Lockett, 2009. "Academic entrepreneurship and business schools," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 560-587, December.
    14. Antonio Della Malva & Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena, 2013. "Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 211-239, January.
    15. Gustavo Da Cruz & Danilo Moreira Jabur & Franklin Mendonça Goês Junior, 2017. "How Much Am I Selling It for? Approaches and Methods of Patents Valuation in Technology Transfer," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(4), pages 69-76, April.
    16. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2005. "Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and NanoBank," NBER Working Papers 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Patrick S Vitale, 2017. "Making science suburban: The suburbanization of industrial research and the invention of “research manâ€," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(12), pages 2813-2834, December.
    18. Joanna Poyago-Theotoky & John Beath & Donald S. Siegel, 2002. "Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University--Industry Partnerships," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 10-21, Spring.
    19. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Gabriele Santoro & Alberto Ferraris & Elisa Giacosa & Guido Giovando, 2018. "How SMEs Engage in Open Innovation: a Survey," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 561-574, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:30:y:2005:i:3:p:263-270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.