IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v10y2001i3p781-814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University Patents and Patent Policy Debates in the USA, 1925-1980

Author

Listed:
  • Mowery, David C
  • Sampat, Bhaven N

Abstract

Government technology policy has been an important topic in Richard Nelson's research agenda throughout his career. This paper examines the evolution of US university patent policies and the available data on university patenting during the "pre-Bayh-Dole" era. This paper examines the evolution of US university patents during the 1925-80 period by focusing on changes in the overall level of patenting and in the characteristics of the universities active in patenting. One of the most striking shifts in these data is the rapid growth of patenting by private universities, many of which had previously avoided it, during the 1970s, as well as the broader expansion of direct university involvement in patent management during this period. Copyright 2001 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Mowery, David C & Sampat, Bhaven N, 2001. "University Patents and Patent Policy Debates in the USA, 1925-1980," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 781-814, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:10:y:2001:i:3:p:781-814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Furman, Jeffrey L. & MacGarvie, Megan J., 2007. "Academic science and the birth of industrial research laboratories in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 756-776, August.
    2. Shiri M. Breznitz, 2013. "Cluster Sustainability," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 27(1), pages 29-39, February.
    3. Soete, Luc & Verspagen, Bart & ter Weel, Bas, 2010. "Systems of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1159-1180, Elsevier.
    4. Heisey, Paul W. & Day-Rubenstein, Kelly A. & King, John L., 2006. "Government Patenting And Technology Transfer," Economic Research Report 33597, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Shiri Breznitz & Douglas Noonan, 2014. "Arts districts, universities, and the rise of digital media," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 594-615, August.
    6. Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna & Bart Verspagen, 2007. "University IPRs and Knowledge Transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient?," SPRU Working Paper Series 154, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Shimizu, Hiroshi & Hoshino, Yusuke, 2015. "Collaboration and Innovation Speed : Evidence from a Prize Data-Set, 1955-2010," IIR Working Paper 15-04, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    8. J. Stanley Metcalfe, 2009. "University and Business Relations: Connecting the Knowledge Economy," Working Papers wp395, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    9. Anthony D So & Bhaven N Sampat & Arti K Rai & Robert Cook-Deegan & Jerome H Reichman & Robert Weissman & Amy Kapczynski, 2008. "Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-7, October.
    10. Michael J. Andrews, 2023. "How Do Institutions of Higher Education Affect Local Invention? Evidence from the Establishment of US Colleges," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-41, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:indcch:v:10:y:2001:i:3:p:781-814. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.