Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 231–249 | Cite as

Is university ownership a sub-optimal property rights regime for commercialisation? Information conditions and entrepreneurship in Greater Manchester, England

  • Christos KalantaridisEmail author
Article
  • 132 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Commercialisation Property rights Information University Uncertainty Entrepreneurship  

JEL Classification

O32 O34 D83 L26 

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azagra-Caro, J. (2010). Do public research organisations own most patents invented by their staff? Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R & D collaboration. Technovation, 30, 100–108.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, Y. B., Liu, J. S., & Lin, P. (2013). Recent trend in graphene for optoelectronics. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15, 1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dequech, D. (2001). Bounded rationality, institutions and uncertainty. Discussion Paper No. 100, IE/UNICAMP (pp. 1–23).Google Scholar
  14. Eisenberg, R. (1996). Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government sponsored research. Virginia Law Review, 82, 1663–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1993). The new age of capitalism. Innovation mediated production (pp. 637–651). July/August: Futures.Google Scholar
  16. Geim, A. K. (2012). Graphene prehistory. Physica Scripta, T146, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. HEFCE. (2005–2014). Higher education-business and community interaction survey 2003–04 to 2012/13.Google Scholar
  19. HESA. (2014a). Finance statistics return 2012/13.Google Scholar
  20. HESA. (2014b). Staff by HE provider 2012/13.Google Scholar
  21. Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy, 41, 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, 40, 1100–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemley, M. (2008). Are universities patent trolls? (p. 18). Media and Entertainment Law Management Journal: Fordham Intellectual Property.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Macdonald, S. (2009). Seducing the goose. Patenting by UK Universities. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, mimeo.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Rai, A. K., & Eisenberg, R. S. (2003). Bayh–Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 289–314.Google Scholar
  41. Ramlogan, R., Mina, A., Tampobolon, G., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2007). Networks of knowledge: The distributed knowledge of medical innovation’. Scientometrics, 70, 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rossi, A., & Geuna, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic Patenting. Research Policy, 40, 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Schackle, G. (1970). Expectation, enterprise and profit. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmid, A. A. (1987). Property, power and public choice: An inquiry into law and economics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  49. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Arora, S. (2012). Early patterns of commercial activity in graphene. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14, 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26, 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon, H. (1959). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swamidass, P. M. (2012). University start-ups as a commercialization alternative: Lessons from three contrasting studies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 342–363.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. UMIP. (2010). Strategic plan 2010–2015, Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  59. UMIP. (2014). Intellectual property and confidentiality, Manchester, UK: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  60. Valdivia, W. D. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings.Google Scholar
  61. Van Rooij, A. (2014). University knowledge production and innovation: getting a grip. Minerva, 52, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.De Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations