IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v23y2007i4p529-540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intellectual property: the assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Donald S. Siegel
  • Mike Wright

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2007. "Intellectual property: the assessment," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 529-540, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:23:y:2007:i:4:p:529-540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grm033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Pablo D’Este & Puay Tang & Surya Mahdi & Andy Neely & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2013. "The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 481-502, May.
    3. Knockaert, M. & Ucbasaran, D. & Wright, M. & Clarysse, B., 2009. "How does tacit knowledge transfer influence innovation speed? The case of science based entrepreneurial firms," Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Working Paper Series 2009-07, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School.
    4. Jasmine Meysman & Sven H. Cleyn & Johan Braet, 2019. "Cash, community and coordination: the triple-C categorisation of technology transfer office organisational philosophy," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 815-835, September.
    5. Jacob Rubæk Holm & Bram Timmermans & Christian Richter Østergaard & Alex Coad & Nicola Grassano & Antonio Vezzani, 2020. "Labor mobility from R&D-intensive multinational companies: implications for knowledge and technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1562-1584, October.
    6. Holgersson, Marcus & Aaboen, Lise, 2019. "A literature review of intellectual property management in technology transfer offices: From appropriation to utilization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías & David Rodeiro-Pazos & Sara Fernández-López, 2016. "The Regional Effect on the Innovative Performance of University Spin-Offs: a Multilevel Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 869-889, December.
    8. Mirjam Knockaert & Deniz Ucbasaran & Mike Wright & Bart Clarysse, 2011. "The Relationship Between Knowledge Transfer, Top Management Team Composition, and Performance: The Case of Science–Based Entrepreneurial Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(4), pages 777-803, July.
    9. Junghee Han & Jungho Kim, 2016. "Empirical Analysis Of Technology Transfer In Korean Universities," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(08), pages 1-26, December.
    10. Barbosa, Natália & Faria, Ana Paula, 2011. "Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional differences?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1157-1169.
    11. Guerrero, Maribel & Siegel, Donald S., 2024. "Schumpeter meets Teece: Proposed metrics for assessing entrepreneurial innovation and dynamic capabilities in entrepreneurial ecosystems in an emerging economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    12. Choi, Haneul & Yoon, Hyunjung & Siegel, Donald & Waldman, David A. & Mitchell, Marie S., 2022. "Assessing differences between university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scientists in technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    13. Matthew Good & Mirjam Knockaert & Birthe Soppe, 2020. "A typology of technology transfer ecosystems: how structure affects interactions at the science–market divide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1405-1431, October.
    14. Ondrej Krejcar & Robert Frischer & Robert Hlavica & Kamil Kuca & Petra Maresova & Ali Selamat, 2020. "Review of Available SW Solutions for Intellectual Property Management Systems from the Perspective of Open Innovation," JOItmC, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Paul Swamidass, 2013. "University startups as a commercialization alternative: lessons from three contrasting case studies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 788-808, December.
    16. Donald S. Siegel, 2022. "Two Cheers for RRBM, Pasteur’s Quadrant, and an Application of RRBM to the Commercialization of Science and Technology Transfer," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(6), pages 1643-1650, September.
    17. Kalantaridis, Christos & Küttim, Merle, 2023. "Multi-dimensional time and university technology commercialisation as opportunity praxis: A realist synthesis of the accumulated literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Junghee Han, 2017. "Technology Commercialization through Sustainable Knowledge Sharing from University-Industry Collaborations, with a Focus on Patent Propensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    19. William Q. Judge & Yuping Liu–Thompkins & J. Lee Brown & Chatdanai Pongpatipat, 2015. "The Impact of Home Country Institutions on Corporate Technological Entrepreneurship via R&D Investments and Virtual World Presence," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(2), pages 237-266, March.
    20. Younhee Kim, 2013. "The ivory tower approach to entrepreneurial linkage: productivity changes in university technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 180-197, April.
    21. Jürgen Janger & Andreas Reinstaller, 2009. "Innovation: Anreize, Inputfaktoren und Output im Spiegel der österreichischen Wirtschaftsstruktur," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 82(8), pages 603-617, August.
    22. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    23. Forti, Enrico & Franzoni, Chiara & Sobrero, Maurizio, 2013. "Bridges or isolates? Investigating the social networks of academic inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1378-1388.

    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:oxford:v:23:y:2007:i:4:p:529-540. 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/oxrep .

    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.