Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 603–620 | Cite as

Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany

  • Mark O. SellenthinEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper analyses the factors that impact on the decision of researchers to patent their research results. Particular emphasis is put on the role of technology transfer offices. It builds on a survey of university professors in Sweden and Germany. The regression results show that researchers that received support from the public infrastructure and researchers that have experience with the patenting system—through own previous patents or joint patent applications with firms—are much more likely to apply for patents.

Keywords

TTO University patents Patent rights regimes Technology transfer 

JEL Classification

I23 O31 O57 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Comments from the editor as well as two anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397–422. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00126-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35. doi: 10.1023/A:1007828026904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). (2001). Knowledge creates markets—action scheme of the German Goverment, Bonn.Google Scholar
  5. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232. doi: 10.1007/s00191-002-0105-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohausz, Hannig, Dawidowicz, & Partner. (1998). Untersuchung zum Verwertungsprivileg – Relevanz des sog. Hochschullehrerprivilegs nach § 42 ArbNErfG. Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Düsseldorf (Investigation of the relevance of the university teachers’ privilege).Google Scholar
  7. Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2000). Interaktion zwischen Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage bei Hochschulen und öffentlichen Forschungseinrichtungen. Mannheim: ZEW-Dokumentation Nr. 00-14, ZEW.Google Scholar
  8. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. R. Feiwel (Ed.), Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2001). Benchmarking industry-science relations—the role of framework conditions. Final Report, Vienna/Mannheim.Google Scholar
  11. Gering, T., & Schmoch, U. (2003). Management of intellectual assets by German public research organisations, in OECD, turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at Public Research Organisations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  12. Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. doi: 10.2307/1912352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2000). Akademiskt entreprenörskap. SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  15. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, W. P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 7(Special Issue), 24–52.Google Scholar
  16. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, W. P. (1994). The firm as an incentive system. The American Economic Review, 84, 972–991.Google Scholar
  17. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. The American Economic Review, 91, 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kienbaum. (2006). Abschlussbericht: “Weiterentwicklung von Kriterien sowie Datenerhebung auf der Basis der Kriterien und Datenauswertung bezüglich der Kompetenz und Leistungsfähigkeit der Patent- und Verwertungsagenturen”. Düsseldorf: Kienbaum Management.Google Scholar
  20. Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A., Zucker, L. G., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7, 428–443. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.4.428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11, 169–182. doi: 10.1080/1351847042000254211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtm020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 55–65. doi: 10.2307/2109992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773–776. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00043-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2007.912813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD. (1999). University research in transition. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2002). Benchmarking industry-science relationships. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2003a). Governance of public research. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. OECD. (2003b). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114. doi: 10.1023/A:1007892413701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695–1711. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00045-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
  34. RRV. (2001). Från forskning till tillväxt – statligt stöd till samverkan mellan högskola och näringsliv. Stockholm: Riksrevisionsverket.Google Scholar
  35. Sandven, T., & Smith, K. (1998). Using Community Innovation Survey data for empirical analysis—data reliability and issues for analysts. IDEA Paper Series No. 4, STEP, Oslo.Google Scholar
  36. Schild, I. (1999). A regional patent study to investigate inventive activity in East Gothia. Working Paper No. 207. Linköping: Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University.Google Scholar
  37. Schmoch, U., Licht, G., & Reinhard, M. (Eds.). (2000). Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer.Google Scholar
  38. Sellenthin, M. O. (2006). Beyond the Ivory Tower: A comparison of patent rights regimes in Sweden and Germany. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping.Google Scholar
  39. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SOU. (1996). Samverkan mellan högskolan och näringslivet. Huvudbetänkande av NYFOR. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  41. SOU. (2005). Nyttiggörande av högskoleuppfinningar. Utredningen om rätten till resultaten av högskoleforskningen. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  42. VINNOVA. (2003). VINNFORSK – VINNOVAs förslag till förbättrad kommersialisering och ökad avkastning i tillväxt på forskningsinvesteringar vid högskolor. Stockholm: VINNOVA.Google Scholar
  43. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Economics and International ManagementCentre for European Economic Research (ZEW)MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations