Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The knowledge economy has put the triple helix cooperation at the heart of economic growth. In this current paradigm, innovation is vital to firm survival, and universities are seen as an undeniable source of new ideas, talents and ventures. The optimal payment scheme for technology licensing be it from a licensee or licensor point of view is an ongoing debate. Researchers have disputed the advantage of fixed fees versus royalty for both parties involved and the benefits of entering the market for an outsider. A recurrent concern in the literature is the lack of empirical evidence to support these claims. Furthermore, while a plethora of studies defend the superiority of fixed fees over royalty, royalty payments still constitute a major part of licensing income for universities and licensor companies alike. Hence, there is a disconnect between the theoretical optimal payment scheme and the payment scheme adopted by companies and universities. We develop a framework to explain the source of this discrepancy. Using the AUTM STATT database, we analyse the effect of company size on the payment type. Our empirical results show that fixed fees are associated with licenses to large companies while royalty is associated with licenses to small companies. Startups pay neither and give equity instead of payment. Our results point to the importance of government intervention to level the field for different company types, and achieve successful university-industry cooperation and knowledge transfer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We acknowledge the fact that not all startups are spinoffs. However, we decided to use the term startup through the paper to stay consistent with previous studies using the AUTM STATT database (Prets and Slate 2014; Hayter and Link 2015). The AUTM survey defines startups as companies that were dependent upon the licensing of the institution’s technology for initiation.

  2. The AUTM survey defines three types of companies, large companies, small companies and startups. The sum of all licences granted to all three types is equal to the total number of licences granted by the university. Hence, these three variables are highly correlated.

  3. We study the lag structure of our independent variables up to five (5) years to account for any time-related effect that can stem from the size of the company.

  4. We replace this variable with FedRD the amount of federal research expenditures which represents the size of the university instead in our alternative model provided in the “Annexe Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13”.

  5. We replace this variable with nbDisclosureE the number of disclosures per FTE TTO employees which represents the workload of the TTO in our alternative model provided in the “Annexe Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13”. The choice of this ratio was based on reports of shortage in TTO employees which negatively affects the commercialisation process (Cartaxo et al. 2013; Swamidass and Vulasa 2009).

  6. The use of OLS regressions necessitates the normal distribution of our variables and their independence from one another. Some of our variables exhibit large skewness values exceeding the |1.5| threshold or are outside of the 1.5 to 4.5 kurtosis range. We normalise these variables by multiplying them by factors of ten (10) and then applying the natural logarithm lnX=ln(X+1) represented by the prefixes : “ln”. The descriptive statistics of our variables can be found in the Table 7 in the appendices. The pairwise correlation of our variables can be found in the Table 13.

  7. We also conducted panel regressions not presented in this paper. However, the stability of our variables across the studied period permits the use of OLS instead of panels.

  8. The proportions of licences to different company sizes are relative to each other which leads to correlation. Thus, we study each company size proportion in separate regressions.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R & d spillovers and recipient firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 336–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcigit, U., & Kerr, W. R. (2018). Growth through heterogeneous innovations. Journal of Political Economy, 126(4), 1374–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., Hsu, P.H., & Li, D. (2013). Less is more: Financial constraints and innovative efficiency. Available at SSRN 1831786.

  • Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Is there any impact of university-industry knowledge transfer on innovation and productivity? An empirical analysis based on swiss firm data. Review of Industrial Organization, 32(2), 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Vivarelli, M. (1996). Firms size and r&d spillovers: Evidence from italy. Small Business Economics, 8(3), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aulakh, P. S., Cavusgil, S. T., & Sarkar, M. (1998). Compensation in international licensing agreements. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(2), 409–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagchi, A., & Mukherjee, A. (2014). Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly. International Review of Economics and Finance, 29, 455–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation, 76, 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggs, A. W. (1992). The licensing of patents under asymmetric information. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 10(2), 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in r&d cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1237–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belenzon, S., & Schankerman, M. (2009). University knowledge transfer: private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. Journal of Law and Economics, 52(1), 111–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1–2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2013). Science-to-business collaborations: A science-to-business marketing perspective on scientific knowledge commercialization. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(4), 564–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousquet, A., Cremer, H., Ivaldi, M., & Wolkowicz, M. (1998). Risk sharing in licensing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16(5), 535–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees versus equity positions. Journal of Business venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2016). Organizational structures of knowledge transfer offices: an analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 132–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2016). The impact of financial slack on explorative and exploitative knowledge sourcing from universities: Evidence from the UK. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(4), 689–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartaxo, R. M., Godinho, M. M., & Gama, G. J. (2013). The University Transfer Technology performance of American Universities. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo, F., Gilless, J. K., Heiman, A., & Zilberman, D. (2016). Time of adoption and intensity of technology transfer: an institutional analysis of offices of technology transfer in the United States. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cebrián, M. (2009). The structure of payments as a way to alleviate contractual hazards in international technology licensing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1135–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chukumba, C., & Jensen, R. (2005). University invention, entrepreneurship, and start-ups. Technical Report w11475, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Chun, H., & Mun, S. B. (2012). Determinants of R&D cooperation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly pp 128–152, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393553.

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and r & d. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 925–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezi, L., Santoro, G., Monge, F., & Zhao, Y. (2018). Assessing the impact and antecedents of university scientific research on firms’ innovation commercialisation. International Journal of Technology Management, 78(1–2), 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Matteo, L., Emes, J., Lammam, C., & Eisen, B. (2016). Comparing Recent Economic Performance in Canada and the United States. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FDA. (2004). Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. Food and Drug Administration, critical path report.

  • Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, L., Grim, C., & Zolas, N. (2019). A portrait of us firms that invest in r&d. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 29, 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., Fontana, R., & Matt, M. (2003). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of university-industry collaboration. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No SEWP 103.

  • Gilbert, R., & Kristiansen, E. G. (2018). Licensing and innovation with imperfect contract enforcement. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 27(2), 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation the historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(6), 639–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, G. (2017). What factors are causal to survival of a startup. Muma Business Review, 1(9), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gornall, W., & Strebulaev, I. A. (2020). Squaring venture capital valuations with reality. Journal of Financial Economics, 135(1), 120–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.H., Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Montresor, S., & Vezzani, A. (2016). Financing constraints, r&d investments and innovative performances: New empirical evidence at the firm level for europe.

  • Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2015). On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 178–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J. S., Li, J., & Ye, G. (2014). Per unit vs. ad valorem royalties under asymmetric information. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 37, 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., Hall, B. H., & Czarnitzki, D. (2016). Patents as quality signals? the implications for financing constraints on r&d. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25(3), 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M. I., & Tauman, Y. (1986). Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(3), 471–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M. I., & Tauman, Y. (2002). Patent licensing: The inside story. The Manchester School, 70(1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Daim, T. U. (2014). A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: Study of us academic research institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 748–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., & Saqib, M. (1996). Firm size, opportunities for adaptation and in-house r & d activity in developing countries: The case of indian manufacturing. Research Policy, 25(5), 713–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 252–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.E., Kim, Y., Kim, Y., & Choi, D., et al. (2010). The impact of technology licensing payment mechanisms on firms’ innovative performance. Technical report. Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy.

  • Leone, M. I., & Oriani, R. (2008). Explaining the remuneration structure of patent licenses. in Proceedings of Annual Citeseer: Meeting of the Academy of Management.

  • Li, D. (2011). Financial constraints, r&d investment, and stock returns. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(9), 2974–3007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lihua Kuo, B., Sher, P. J., Lin, C. H., & Shih, H. Y. (2012). Technology royalty as a strategic impetus in knowledge exchange. Innovation, 14(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, A. (2008). Determinants of r&d cooperation: Evidence from spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(1), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macho-Stadler, I., Martinez-Giralt, X., & Perez-Castrillo, J. D. (1996). The role of information in licensing contract design. Research Policy, 25(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankins, J. C. (2009). Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronautica, 65(9–10), 1216–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2009). Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 625–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the Ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I. P., & Ruckman, K. (2017). Licensing speed: Its determinants and payoffs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 46, 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melchior, A., Telle, K., & Wiig, H. (2000). Globalisation and inequality (p. 6). Studies on Foreign Policy Issues, Report B: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  • Merz, M. (2019). Innovative efficiency as a lever to overcome financial constraints in r&d contests. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, pp. 1–11.

  • Mohnen, P., & Hoareau, C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? evidence from cis 2. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(2–3), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motohashi, K., et al. (2004). Economic analysis of university-industry collaborations: The role of new technology based firms in Japanese national innovation reform. Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI): Technical report.

  • Motohashi, K. (2005). University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the national innovation system. Research Policy, 34(5), 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (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(1), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of kibs in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9), 1501–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munos, B. (2009). Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 8(12), 959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prets, R. A., & Slate, J. R. (2014). Predicting income generated from licensing universities’intellectual property. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 4(1), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12(1), 47–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7), 1163–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savva, N., & Taneri, N. (2011). The equity versus royalty dilemma in university technology transfer. LBS Working.

  • Savva, N., & Taneri, N. (2014). The role of equity, royalty, and fixed fees in technology licensing to university spin-offs. Management Science, 61(6), 1323–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction: Evidence from spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, D. (2005). Fee versus royalty reconsidered. Games and Economic Behavior, 53(1), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, B. (2013). One in five us businesses with r&d applied for a us patent in 2008. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics InfoBrief NSF-13-307 Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

  • Siegel, D. S., 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(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Wright, M., Chapple, W., & Lockett, A. (2008). Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer in the us and UK: A stochastic distance function approach. Economic of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7–8), 717–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49(4), 478–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiganti, A. (2017). Can starving start-ups beat fat labs? A bandit model of innovation with endogenous financing constraint. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 122, 702–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2007). University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 620–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trombini, G. (2012). Technology licensing in markets for ideas: empirical evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. PhD thesis, Università Ca’Foscari Venezia.

  • Tsai, K. H. (2005). R&d productivity and firm size: A nonlinear examination. Technovation, 25(7), 795–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Den Berghe, L., & Guild, P. D. (2007). Firm perceptions of competitive advantage of new university technology and their impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 4(04), 479–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berghe, L., & Guild, P. D. (2008). The strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions: An empirical study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology–i: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishwasrao, S. (2007). Royalties versus fees: How do firms pay for foreign technology? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(4), 741–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z., Parry, M. E., & Song, M. (2011). The impact of technology transfer office characteristics on university invention disclosure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(2), 212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenger, T. R. (1994). Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in r&d: Agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas, and effort by firm size. Management Science, 40(6), 708–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Arman Yalvac Aksoy & Catherine Beaudry

Authors
  1. Arman Yalvac Aksoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Beaudry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arman Yalvac Aksoy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Table 7 Descriptive statistics of the variables used in our regressions
Full size table
Table 8 Regression results for the number of licences generating royalty income with the alternative model
Full size table
Table 9 Regression results for the amount of royalty income with the alternative model
Full size table
Table 10 Regression results for the number of licences with equity with the alternative model
Full size table
Table 11 Regression results for the amount of equity sales income with the alternative model
Full size table
Table 12 Regression results for the amount of other licensing income with the alternative model
Full size table
Table 13 Pairwise correlation of our transformed variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aksoy, A.Y., Beaudry, C. How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer. J Technol Transf 46, 2051–2121 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09838-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09838-x

Keywords

JEL Classification:

Search

Navigation