Abstract
In an era where knowledge constitutes a key source of innovation and sustainable competitive advantage, universities are viewed increasingly as engines of growth. This is because they are places where research outcomes that may lead to radical or disruptive changes to practice are produced. Cognisant of this, and its implications for economic development, policy-makers conferred ownership of research outcomes to universities as a means of facilitating commercialisation. This paper, alongside a growing body of literature, questions the prevailing property rights regime, positing that it is sub-optimal in terms of reducing societal benefits coming from commercialisation. More specifically, drawing on the experience of Greater Manchester (England), this paper argues that university ownership implications on the availability of information used in commercialisation decisions. The detachment of entrepreneurs, a direct consequence of property rights, in the transition from disclosure to patenting means that it is not the transfer of technical information (as suggested in the literature) that constitutes the main challenge. Instead, this paper suggests it is ‘unknowledge’ i.e. information that has yet to be generated in the introduction of something new that impacts commercialisation. The paper suggests that, rather paradoxically, entrepreneurial engagement may be best attained.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is worth pointing out here that there is a divide in the ownership implications of public funding between national and European sources. Whilst the former necessitate university ownership of the knowledge generated, the latter assign the IP to users involved in the research.
This project was funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the view only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
References
Abrams, I., Leung, G., & Stevens, A. J. (2009). How are US technology transfer offices tasked and motivated—Is it all about money? Research Management Review, 17, 1–34.
Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stern, S. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(3), 617–635.
Allen, D., & Potts, J. (2015). The innovation commons—Why it exists, What it does, Who it benefits, and How Available at SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2617141. Accessed April 1, 2016.
Ankrah, S. N., Burges, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33, 50–65.
Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, 427–454.
Azagra-Caro, J. (2010). Do public research organisations own most patents invented by their staff? Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 237–250.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R & D collaboration. Technovation, 30, 100–108.
Chen, Y. B., Liu, J. S., & Lin, P. (2013). Recent trend in graphene for optoelectronics. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15, 1545.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijn, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.
D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.
Dequech, D. (2001). Bounded rationality, institutions and uncertainty. Discussion Paper No. 100, IE/UNICAMP (pp. 1–23).
Eisenberg, R. (1996). Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government sponsored research. Virginia Law Review, 82, 1663–1727.
Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1993). The new age of capitalism. Innovation mediated production (pp. 637–651). July/August: Futures.
Geim, A. K. (2012). Graphene prehistory. Physica Scripta, T146, 1–4.
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.
HEFCE. (2005–2014). Higher education-business and community interaction survey 2003–04 to 2012/13.
HESA. (2014a). Finance statistics return 2012/13.
HESA. (2014b). Staff by HE provider 2012/13.
Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy, 41, 262–275.
Howells, J., Ramlogan, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2012). Innovation and university collaboration: paradox and complexity within the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 703–721.
Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2012). Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: New evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 723–750.
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.
Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, 40, 1100–1112.
Kirchberger, M. A., & Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9486-3.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages—An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37, 1224–1240.
Lemley, M. (2008). Are universities patent trolls? (p. 18). Media and Entertainment Law Management Journal: Fordham Intellectual Property.
Litan, R. E., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). The university as innovator: Bumps in the road. Issues in Science and Technology. http://www.issues.org/23.4/litan.html. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Macdonald, S. (2009). Seducing the goose. Patenting by UK Universities. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, mimeo.
Macho-Stadler, I., Perez-Catrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2008). Licensing of university innovations: The case of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25, 483–510.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology before and after the Bayh–Dole Act in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 648–687.
Newberg, J. A., & Dunn, R. L. (2002). Keeping secrets in the campus lab: Law, values and rules of engagement for Industry—University R&D partnerships. American Business Law Journal, 39, 187–241.
Novoselov, K. S., Fal’ko, V. I., Colombo, L., Gellert, P. R., Schwab, M. G., & Kim, K. (2012). A roadmap for graphene. Nature, 490, 192–200.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. In K. Grandin (Ed.), The Nobel Prizes 2009 (pp. 408–444). Nobel Foundation: Stockholm.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
Powell, W. W., Owen-Smith, J., & Colyvas, J. A. (2007). Innovation and emulation: Lessons from American Universities in selling private rights to knowledge. Minerva, 45, 121–142.
Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh–Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 289–314.
Ramlogan, R., Mina, A., Tampobolon, G., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2007). Networks of knowledge: The distributed knowledge of medical innovation’. Scientometrics, 70, 479–489.
Reichman, J. H., & Uhlir, P. F. (2003). A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1–2), 315–462.
Rhoten, D., & Powell, W. W. (2007). The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 345–373.
Rossi, A., & Geuna, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic Patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068–1076.
Rossi, F., & Rosli, A. (2013). Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: Evidence from the UKs HE-BCI survey. Working Paper. Birkbeck College, University of London, London, UK.
Schackle, G. (1970). Expectation, enterprise and profit. London: Allen and Unwin.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fisher, M. M., & Fochlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31, 303–328.
Schmid, A. A. (1987). Property, power and public choice: An inquiry into law and economics. New York: Praeger.
Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Arora, S. (2012). Early patterns of commercial activity in graphene. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14, 811.
Siegel, S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.
Siegel, S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26, 582–595.
Simon, H. (1959). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Macmillan.
Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–225.
Swamidass, P. M. (2012). University start-ups as a commercialization alternative: Lessons from three contrasting studies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 342–363.
Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 343–363.
Tijssen, R. (2012). R&D globalization processes and university–industry research cooperation: Measurement and indicators. In CWTS Working Paper Series, CWTS-WP-2012–009, Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University.
UMIP. (2010). Strategic plan 2010–2015, Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
UMIP. (2014). Intellectual property and confidentiality, Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.
Valdivia, W. D. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings.
Van Rooij, A. (2014). University knowledge production and innovation: getting a grip. Minerva, 52, 263–272.
Acknowledgements
This paper was written whilst I was a visiting scholar at the Ostrom Workshop, University of Indiana, Bloomington. I am grateful to colleagues at the Workshop for their constructive comments. I would like to acknowledge particularly the suggestions and criticisms of Professor Mike McGinnis who acted as my mentor during my period of stay at Bloomington. I would also like thank to acknowledge the constructive comments of the reviewers and the associate editor. However, the views expressed here are those of the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
Part of the data, clearly identified in the Methodology Section of this paper, was collected as part of an externally funded project funded by the EU, under the INTERREG IVC Programme. The author was the lead investigator. There are no financial conflicts of interest. Regarding non-financial conflicts of interest, it must be reported here that the author was employed by one of five higher education institutions located in Greater Manchester and examined. The author was in the employment of the University during part of the data collection process (the INTERREG IVC element in particular). This was a large organisation employing (at the time) around 1000 staff and the author did not have any personal involvement (or interest) in commercialisation and or contract research with commercial organisations (the pathways at the heart of this study). This was also the case for the academic department where he worked. No interviews were conducted with academic or support staff of the department where the author worked. The author worked at a different higher education institution when the remainder of the data was collected, analysed, and the paper was written up. Part of the data were collected through interviews with pro vice-chancellors, academics, and business support professionals, R&D managers in enterprises and policy decision makers. They provided information of their experiences of knowledge generation and transfer (in the employment roles they performed). Thus, a modest amount of personal and no medical data was collected. When initial contacted was established, the participants were informed of their ability to decline to participate in whole or part of the interview process or withdraw conset at any time. A statement (reiterating these points) was also read to participants prior to the conduct of the interview and their explicit consent was sought.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalantaridis, C. Is university ownership a sub-optimal property rights regime for commercialisation? Information conditions and entrepreneurship in Greater Manchester, England. J Technol Transf 44, 231–249 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9630-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9630-8