IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/teavfo/09-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting 1965-1988

Author

Listed:
  • Henderson, R.
  • Jaffe, A.B.: Tratenberg, M.

Abstract

This paper explores changes in university patenting behavior between 1965 and 1988. We show that university patents have increased 15-fold while real university research spending almost tripled. The causes of this increase are unclear, but may include increased focus on commercially relevant technologies, increased industry funding of university research, a 1980 change in federal law that facilitated patenting of results from federally funded research, and the widespread creation of formal technology licensing offices at universities. Up until approximately the mid-1980s, university patents were more highly cited, and were cited by more technologically diverse patents, than a random sample of all patents. This difference is consistent with the notion that university inventions are more important and more basic than the average invention. The differences between the two groups disappeared, however, in the middle part of the 1980s, partly due to a decline in the citation rates for all universities, and partly due to an increasing share of patents going to smaller institutions, whose patents are less highly cited throughout this period. Moreover at both large and small institutions there was a large increase in the fraction of university patents receiving zero citations. Our results suggest that the rate of increase of important patents from universities is much less than the overall rate of increase of university patenting in the period covered by our data.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Henderson, R. & Jaffe, A.B.: Tratenberg, M., 1995. "Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting 1965-1988," Papers 09-95, Tel Aviv.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:teavfo:09-95
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basberg, Bjorn L., 1987. "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 131-141, August.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1992. "Ivory Tower Versus Corporate Lab: An Empirical Study of Basic Research and Appropriability," NBER Working Papers 4146, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Partha Dasgupta & Paul A. David, 1987. "Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, chapter 16, pages 519-542, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    2. Paula E. Stephan, 2004. "Robert K. Merton's perspective on priority and the provision of the public good knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(1), pages 81-87, May.
    3. Francesco Rullani, 2005. "The Debate and the Community. “Reflexive Identity” in the FLOSS Community," LEM Papers Series 2005/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    4. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    5. Luintel, Kul B. & Khan, Mosahid, 2017. "Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1738-1754.
    6. Lai, Kuei-Kuei & Chen, Yu-Long & Kumar, Vimal & Daim, Tugrul & Verma, Pratima & Kao, Fang-Chen & Liu, Ruirong, 2023. "Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: A case study of E-payment technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    7. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    8. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    9. Timo Boppart & Kevin E. Staub, 2012. "Online accessibility of academic articles and the diversity of economics," ECON - Working Papers 075, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2022. "Australian innovation: Patent database construction and first evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. Éric Archambault, 2002. "Methods for using patents in cross-country comparisons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(1), pages 15-30, April.
    12. David Paul A., 2008. "The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-106, October.
    13. Kaihuang Zhang & Qinglan Qian & Yijing Zhao, 2020. "Evolution of Guangzhou Biomedical Industry Innovation Network Structure and Its Proximity Mechanism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Crespi, Gustavo & D'Este, Pablo & Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo, 2011. "The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 55-68, February.
    15. Paul A. David, 2005. "The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and," Development and Comp Systems 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    17. Clifford Bekar & Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2018. "General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1005-1033, December.
    18. Jean-Michel Dalle & Paul A. David, 2007. "“It Takes All Kinds”: A Simulation Modeling Perspective on Motivation and Coordination in Libre Software Development Projects," Discussion Papers 07-024, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    19. Ming Liu & Sumner LaCroix, 2011. "The Impact of Stronger Property Rights in Pharmaceuticals on Innovation in Developed and Developing Countries," Working Papers 201116, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    20. Rajeev K. Goel & Daniel P. Rich, 2005. "Organization of Markets for Science and Technology," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(1), pages 1-17, March.

    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:fth:teavfo:09-95. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fotauil.html .

    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.