Adams, J., 1990, 'Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth', Journal of Political Economy
, 673–702.Google Scholar
Adams, J., 1998, 'Endogenous R & D Spillovers and Industrial Research Productivity', manuscript, University of Florida.
Association of University Technology, Inc., 1996, 1997. AUTM Licensing Survey.
Cohen, W.M., R. Florida, L. Randazzese, and J. Walsh, 1998, 'Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance', in Roger Noll ed., Challenges to Research Universities
, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 171–199.Google Scholar
Henderson, R., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, 'Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965- 1988', Review of Economics and Statistics, 119–127.
Holmstrom, B., 1989, 'Agency Costs and Innovation', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
, 305–327.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., 1989, 'Real Effects of Academic Research', American Economic Review
5, 957–970.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson, 1993, 'Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations', Quarterly Journal of Economics
3, 577–598.Google Scholar
Jansen, C. and H. Dillon, 1999, 'Where do the Leads Come From? Source Data from Six Institutions', The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers
Jensen, R. and M. Thursby, 1999, 'Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions', American Economic Review, forthcoming.
Kamien, M., 1992, 'Patent Licensing', in R. Auman and S. Hart eds., Handbook of Game Theory
, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E., 1995, 'Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics, and Financing', The Review of Economics and Statistics
, 55–65.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. and Y. Lee, 1996, 'The Modern University: Contributor to Industrial Innovation and Recipient of Industrial R & D Support', Research Policy
, 1027–1058.Google Scholar
Mowery, D., R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A. Ziedonis, 1999, 'The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer: An Analysis of Data from Columbia University, the University of California, and Stanford University', Research Policy, forthcoming.
Mowery, D. and A. Ziedonis, 1999, 'The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer: Analyzing Data from Entrants and Incumbents', Research Policy, forthcoming.
National Research Council, Research Doctorate Programs in the United States
, 1995, M. Goldberger, B. Maher, and P. Flattau eds., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Parnes, M., G. Omenn, and E. Brock, 2000, 'A Case Study of System Complexity and Regional Approaches to Technology Transfer', The Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.
Rosenberg, N., 1992, 'Scientific Instrumentation and University Research', Research Policy
, 381–390.Google Scholar
Siegel, D., D. Waldman, and A. Link, 1999, 'Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study', NBER Working Paper a7256.
Thursby, J. and S. Kemp, 2000, 'Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing', Research Policy, forthcoming.
Thursby, J. and M. Thursby, 2000a, 'Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing', NBER Working Paper a7718.
Thursby, J. and M. Thursby, 2000b. 'Industry Perspectives on Licensing University Technologies: Sources and Problems', The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, forthcoming.
Ziedonis, A., 1999, 'Inward Technology Transfer by Firms: The Case of University Technology Licenses', manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.
Zucker, L., M. Darby, and J. Armstrong, 1998, 'Geographically Localized Knowledge: Spillovers or Markets', Economic Inquiry
1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Zucker, L., M. Darby, and M. Brewer, 1998, 'Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises', American Economic Review
, 290–306.Google Scholar