IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i6p1060-1069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University licensing and the flow of scientific knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Thompson, Neil C.
  • Ziedonis, Arvids A.
  • Mowery, David C.

Abstract

As university involvement in technology transfer and entrepreneurship has increased, concerns over the patenting and licensing of scientific discoveries have grown. This paper examines the effect that the licensing of academic patents has on journal citations to academic publications covering the same scientific research. We analyze data on invention disclosures, patents, and licenses from the University of California, a leading U.S. academic patenter and licensor, between 1997 and 2007. We also develop a novel “inventor-based” maximum-likelihood matching technique to automate and generalize Murray's (2002) “patent-paper pairs” methodology. We use this methodology to identify the scientific publications associated with University of California patents and licenses.

Suggested Citation

  • Thompson, Neil C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A. & Mowery, David C., 2018. "University licensing and the flow of scientific knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1060-1069.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:6:p:1060-1069
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318300581
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.008?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. Gilligan, Michael J. & Sergenti, Ernest J., 2008. "Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 3(2), pages 89-122, July.
    2. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    3. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    4. Hopkins, Daniel J., 2010. "Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(1), pages 40-60, February.
    5. Walsh, John P. & Cohen, Wesley M. & Cho, Charlene, 2007. "Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1184-1203, October.
    6. Gordon, Sanford C., 2009. "Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 534-554, November.
    7. Erika Check Hayden, 2011. "Licence rules hinder work on rare disease," Nature, Nature, vol. 470(7334), pages 318-319, February.
    8. Jonathan McDonald Ladd & Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Exploiting a Rare Communication Shift to Document the Persuasive Power of the News Media," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 394-410, April.
    9. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    10. Lei, Zhen & Juneja, Rakhi & Wright, Brian D, 2009. "Patents versus patenting: implications of intellectual property protection for biological research," MPRA Paper 34640, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Fehder, Daniel C. & Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2014. "Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific journals as knowledge platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 83-94.
    12. Eggers, Andrew C. & Hainmueller, Jens, 2009. "MPs for Sale? Returns to Office in Postwar British Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 513-533, November.
    13. Alexis Diamond & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2013. "Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 932-945, July.
    14. Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2007. "Real Options in Technology Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1618-1633, October.
    15. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "The Market Economy and the Scientific Commons," Chapters, in: Birgitte Andersen (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Sekhon, Jasjeet S., 2011. "Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching package for R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i07).
    17. Drivas, Kyriakos & Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Academic patent licenses: Roadblocks or signposts for nonlicensee cumulative innovation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 282-303.
    18. David Mowery & Arvids Ziedonis, 2007. "Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 157-172, June.
    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. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Margaret E. Blume-Kohout, 2023. "The case of the interrupting funder: dynamic effects of R&D funding and patenting in U.S. universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1221-1242, August.
    4. Shen, Yung-Chi & Wang, Ming-Yeu & Yang, Ya-Chu, 2020. "Discovering the potential opportunities of scientific advancement and technological innovation: A case study of smart health monitoring technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    5. G.S Ascione & L. Ciucci & C. Detotto & V. Sterzi, 2021. "Do universities look like patent trolls? An Empirical Study of University Patent Infringement Litigation in the United States," Working Paper CRENoS 202105, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    6. Antelo, Manel & Bru, Lluís, 2023. "Licensing a product innovation from an external innovator to a Stackelberg duopoly," MPRA Paper 117542, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    2. Fehder, Daniel C. & Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2014. "Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific journals as knowledge platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 83-94.
    3. Welch, Eric W. & Shin, Eunjung & Long, Jennifer, 2013. "Potential effects of the Nagoya Protocol on the exchange of non-plant genetic resources for scientific research: Actors, paths, and consequences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 136-147.
    4. Jasjeet Singh Sekhon & Richard D. Grieve, 2012. "A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 695-714, June.
    5. David Mowery, 2011. "Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 697-711, December.
    6. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    7. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    8. Sotaro Shibayama, 2012. "Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 508-531, August.
    9. Kwon, Seokbeom & Marco, Alan C., 2021. "Can antitrust law enforcement spur innovation? Antitrust regulation of patent consolidation and its impact on follow-on innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    10. Sotaro Shibayama, 2015. "Academic commercialization and changing nature of academic cooperation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 513-532, April.
    11. Schaeffer, Véronique, 2019. "The use of material transfer agreements in academia: A threat to open science or a cooperation tool?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    12. Drivas, Kyriakos & Lei, Zhen & Wright, Brian D., 2017. "Academic patent licenses: Roadblocks or signposts for nonlicensee cumulative innovation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 282-303.
    13. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    14. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    15. Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, "undated". "Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 244, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    16. Gabriele Spilker & Tobias Böhmelt, 2013. "The impact of preferential trade agreements on governmental repression revisited," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 343-361, September.
    17. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    19. Xueli Wang & Yen Lee & Xiwei Zhu & Ayse Okur Ozdemir, 2022. "Exploring the Relationship Between Community College Students’ Exposure to Math Contextualization and Educational Outcomes," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 63(2), pages 309-336, March.
    20. Francesco Lissoni, 2013. "Intellectual property and university–industry technology transfer," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 7, pages 164-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University research; Technology transfer; Scientific communication; Intellectual property; Licensing; Material transfer agreements; Research inputs; Research tools;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • R12 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity; Interregional Trade (economic geography)

    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:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:6:p:1060-1069. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.