Copyright © The Authors 2007. Published by Oxford University Press.
Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications
* A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Riverside, e-mail: donald.siegel{at}ucr.edu
** K.U. Leuven, e-mail: Reinhilde.Veugelers{at}econ.kuleuven.be
*** Nottingham University Business School, e-mail: mike.wright{at}nottingham.ac.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The recent increase in the rate of commercialization of intellectual property at US and European universities has important performance and policy implications. We review recent studies of the antecedents and consequences of these activities and then draw some lessons learned for policy-makers. A key conclusion is that universities and regions must formulate and implement coherent and feasible technology transfer/commercialization strategies.
Key Words: technology transfer offices • entrepreneurship • intellectual property
1 In the UK, universities have increasingly enforced their ownership rights to the IP generated by academic scientists, with the royalties associated with it being distributed between the relevant parties on an institutionally organized basis. Germany and Belgium adopted Bayh–Dole-type legislation in the late 1990s, while in France, this type of regulation had existed for some time. In Italy, public researchers receive the right of ownership of their IP but in most cases the university makes a formal contract on an individual basis to give the IP rights to the university. Discussions are in progress in Sweden and Finland to change to a Bayh–Dole-type arrangement from one where academic scientists owned their IP. Most European countries have changed their legislation to make it possible and/or more attractive to researchers and academics to take equity in a start-up and/or receive royalties. In France, for example, it was illegal before 1999 for an academic to assume equity in a start-up company (for additional discussion of this issue, see Wright et al. (2007)).
2 See Thursby et al. (2001) for an extensive description of this survey.
3 According to the AUTM (2005), the number of start-up firms at US universities rose from 35 in 1980 to 462 in 2004.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. S. Siegel and M. Wright Intellectual property: the assessment Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy, December 1, 2007; 23(4): 529 - 540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|