The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?

  • David C. Mowery
  • Bhaven N. Sampat

Abstract

Recent initiatives by a number of OECD governments suggest considerable interest in emulating the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, a piece of legislation that is widely credited with stimulating significant growth in university-industry technology transfer and research collaboration in the US. We examine the effects of Bayh-Dole on university-industry collaboration and technology transfer in the US, emphasizing the lengthy history of both activities prior to 1980 and noting the extent to which these activities are rooted in the incentives created by the unusual scale and structure (by comparison with Western Europe or Japan) of the US higher education system. Efforts at “emulation” of the Bayh-Dole policy elsewhere in the OECD are likely to have modest success at best without greater attention to the underlying structural differences among the higher education systems of these nations.

Key words

Bayh-Dole technology transfer patents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 1998, AUTM Licensing Survey 1998, Survey Summary. Norwalk, CT: AUTM.Google Scholar
  2. Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), 2000, The AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 1999, Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
  3. Breschi, S., F. Lissoni, and F. Montobbio, 2004, Open Science and University Patenting: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Italian Case Mimeo.Google Scholar
  4. Christie, A.F., S.D ’Aloisio, K.L. Gaita, M.J. Howlett, and E.M. Webster, 2003, ‘Analysis of the Legal Framework for Patent Ownership in Publicly Funded Research Institutions,’ Commonwealth of Australia, Division of Education, Science, and Training.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J.P. Walsh, 2002, ‘Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D,’ Management Science 48, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colyvas, J.M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R. R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg, and B.N. Sampat, 2002, ‘How Do University Inventions Get into Practice?’ Management Science 48, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dasgupta, P. and P. David, 1994, ‘Towards a New Economics of Science,’ Research Policy 23(5), 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisenberg, R., 1996, ‘Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research,’ Virginia Law Review 82, 1663–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, R, 2001, ‘Bargaining over the Transfer of Proprietary Research Tools: Is This Market Emerging or Failing?,’ in D.L. Zimmerman, R.C. Dreyfuss, and H. First, (eds.), Expanding the Bounds of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Geiger, R. 1986, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Geiger, R.L., 1993, Research And Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Government University Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), 1991, Industrial Perspectives on Innovation and Interactions with Universities, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, B.H. and R.H. Ziedonis, 2001, ‘The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979–95,’ RAND Journal of Economics 32(1), 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heller, M.A. and R.S. Eisenberg, 1998, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,’ Science 280, 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson, R., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, ‘Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–88,’ Review of Economics & Statistics 80, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson, R., A.B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, ‘University Patenting Amid Changing Incentives for Commercialization,’ in G. Barba Navaretti, P. Dasgupta, K.G. Mäler and D. Siniscalco (eds.), Creation and Transfer of Knowledge, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Innovation’s Golden Goose, 2002, The Economist 365, T3.Google Scholar
  18. Katz, M.L. and J.A. Ordover, 1990, ‘R&D Competition and Cooperation,’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics: 137–192.Google Scholar
  19. Kilger, C. and K. Bartenbach, 2002, ‘New Rules for German Professors,’ Science 298, 1173–1175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin, R.C., A. Klevorick, R.R. Nelson and S. Winter, 1987, ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development,’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liebeskind, J., 2001, ‘Risky Business: Universities and Intellectual Property,’ Academe 87.Google Scholar
  22. Mansfield, E., 1991, ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovations,’ Research Policy 20, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merges, R. and R. Nelson, 1994, ‘On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decisions,’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 25, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis, 2001, ‘The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by US Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980,’ Research Policy 30, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mowery, D.C. and B.N. Sampat, 2001a, ‘Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation,’ Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 317–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mowery, D. C. and B.N. Sampat, 2001b, ‘University Patents, Patent Policies, and Patent Policy Debates, 1925–1980,’ Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mowery, D.C., R.R. Nelson, B.N. Sampat, and A.A. Ziedonis, 2004, Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University Industry Technology Transfer Before and After Bayh-Dole, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. National Science Board, 2000, Science and Engineering Indicators, Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  29. OECD, 2000, A New Economy? Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. OECD, 2003, Turning Science Into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. Reimers, N., 1998, Stanford’s Office of Technology Licensing and the Cohen/Boyer Cloning Patents, An Oral History Conducted in 1997 by Sally Smith Hughes, Ph.D., Regional Oral History Office, Berkeley, CA: The Bancroft Library, U.C Berkeley.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenberg, N, 1998, ‘Technological Change in Chemicals: The Role of University-Industry Relations,’ in A. Arora, R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds.), Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenberg, N. and R.R. Nelson, 1994, ‘American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry,’ Research Policy 23, 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trow, M., 1979, ‘Aspects of Diversity in American Higher Education,’ in H. Gans (ed.), On the Making of Americans, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  35. Trow, M., 1991, ‘American Higher Education: “Exceptional” or Just Different,’ in B.E. Shafer (ed.), Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Mowery
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bhaven N. Sampat
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Haas School of BusinessUC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.NBERStanfordUSA
  3. 3.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.School of Public Health Health Management and PolicyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations