Jump to content

University technology transfer offices: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ansh.b (talk | contribs)
46 edits
mNo edit summary
Ansh.b (talk | contribs)
46 edits
Final Draft of Wikipedia Article
Line 25: Line 25:


== Strategies ==
== Strategies ==
TTOs attempt to capitalize on the research developments made at the university by employing strategies focused on providing the university with opportunities for financial gain and increased research impact. A common strategy that TTOs engage in is licensing their inventions, either to an industry partner or back to the university inventor if the inventor started a company (i.e. a university spin-off).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Macho-Stadler|first=Inés|last2=Pérez-Castrillo|first2=David|last3=Veugelers|first3=Reinhilde|date=2007-06-01|title=Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016771870600083X|journal=International Journal of Industrial Organization|volume=25|issue=3|pages=483–510|doi=10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.06.001}}</ref> Through this approach, TTOs can bring university technologies to market without having to engage in production and distribution themselves. TTOs can also take an equity stake in the spin-off company rather than licensing the technology.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lockett|first=Andy|last2=Wright|first2=Mike|last3=Franklin|first3=Stephen|url=https://link-springer-com.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/article/10.1023/A:1022220216972|journal=Small Business Economics|volume=20|issue=2|pages=185–200|doi=10.1023/a:1022220216972}}</ref> Some research has suggested that equity in spin-off companies may provide higher returns than licensing<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Bray|first=Michael J|last2=Lee|first2=James N|date=2000-09-01|title=University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902698000342|journal=Journal of Business Venturing|volume=15|issue=5|pages=385–392|doi=10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00034-2}}</ref>, but this strategy seems to be more common with TTOs that are financially independent from the parent university (i.e. external TTO structure).<ref name=":4" /> While these strategies vary greatly among TTOs at different universities, a majority of them employ some combination of licensing and equity stakes, with licensing being a more standard practice.<ref name=":12" />
TTOs attempt to capitalize on the research developments made at the university by employing strategies focused on providing the university with opportunities for financial gain and increased research impact. A common strategy that TTOs engage in is licensing their inventions, either to an industry partner or back to the university inventor if the inventor started a company (i.e. a university spin-off).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Macho-Stadler|first=Inés|last2=Pérez-Castrillo|first2=David|last3=Veugelers|first3=Reinhilde|date=2007-06-01|title=Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016771870600083X|journal=International Journal of Industrial Organization|volume=25|issue=3|pages=483–510|doi=10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.06.001}}</ref> Through this approach, TTOs can bring university technologies to market without having to engage in production and distribution themselves. TTOs can also take an equity stake in the spin-off company rather than licensing the technology.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lockett|first=Andy|last2=Wright|first2=Mike|last3=Franklin|first3=Stephen|date=|title=Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies|url=https://link-springer-com.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/article/10.1023/A:1022220216972|journal=Small Business Economics|volume=20|issue=2|pages=185–200|doi=10.1023/a:1022220216972|via=}}</ref> Some research has suggested that equity in spin-off companies may provide higher returns than licensing<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Bray|first=Michael J|last2=Lee|first2=James N|date=2000-09-01|title=University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902698000342|journal=Journal of Business Venturing|volume=15|issue=5|pages=385–392|doi=10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00034-2}}</ref>, but this strategy seems to be more common with TTOs that are financially independent from the parent university (i.e. external TTO structure).<ref name=":4" /> While these strategies vary greatly among TTOs at different universities, a majority of them employ some combination of licensing and equity stakes, with licensing being a more standard practice.<ref name=":12" />


== International diffusion & TTOs outside the US ==
== International diffusion & TTOs outside the US ==
As many major research universities across the US began to adopt TTOs, institutions outside the US became attracted to the idea of taking control of their commercialization activities as well. Prior to the 2000s, many German-speaking and Scandinavian countries had a policy of "professor's privilege", in which faculty retain the right to control the intellectual property of their inventions. In recent years, many [[OECD]] and [[European Union|EU]] nations created legislation that emulated Bayh-Dole, in an attempt to increase the commercialization activities and impact of their respective research universities.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last=Geuna|first=Aldo|last2=Rossi|first2=Federica|date=2011-10-01|title=Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000898|journal=Research Policy|series=Special Issue: 30 Years After Bayh-Dole: Reassessing Academic Entrepreneurship|volume=40|issue=8|pages=1068–1076|doi=10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.008}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/benchmarking-industry-science-relationships_9789264175105-en|title=Books /
As many major research universities across the US began to adopt TTOs, institutions outside the US became attracted to the idea of taking control of their commercialization activities as well. Prior to the 2000s, many German-speaking and Scandinavian countries had a policy of "professor's privilege", in which faculty retain the right to control the intellectual property of their inventions. In recent years, many [[OECD]] and [[European Union|EU]] nations created legislation that emulated Bayh-Dole, in an attempt to increase the commercialization activities and impact of their respective research universities.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last=Geuna|first=Aldo|last2=Rossi|first2=Federica|date=2011-10-01|title=Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000898|journal=Research Policy|series=Special Issue: 30 Years After Bayh-Dole: Reassessing Academic Entrepreneurship|volume=40|issue=8|pages=1068–1076|doi=10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.008}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/benchmarking-industry-science-relationships_9789264175105-en|title=Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships|last=|first=|date=|website=www.oecd-ilibrary.org|language=en|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2017-10-30}}</ref> Denmark was among the first to abolish professor's privilege, followed by Germany, Austria, Norway and Finland between 2000-2007.<ref name=":7" /> Countries such as France and the UK, which already had policies in place that grant intellectual property rights to universities during this period, began heavily encouraging and enforcing these institutional ownership rights.<ref name=":7" /> Currently, most European countries grant universities the rights to the intellectual property of inventions developed by faculty researchers, yet a few countries such as Italy and Sweden still employ professor's privilege.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Farnstrand Damsgaard|first=E.|last2=Thursby|first2=M. C.|date=2013-02-01|title=University entrepreneurship and professor privilege|url=https://academic.oup.com/icc/article/22/1/183/882569/University-entrepreneurship-and-professor|journal=Industrial and Corporate Change|language=en|volume=22|issue=1|pages=183–218|doi=10.1093/icc/dts047|issn=0960-6491}}</ref> Hence, there has been a marked increase in the commercializing activities of universities and creation of TTOs in Europe.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":13" />
Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships|website=www.oecd-ilibrary.org|language=en|access-date=2017-10-30}}</ref> Denmark was among the first to abolish professor's privilege, followed by Germany, Austria, Norway and Finland between 2000-2007.<ref name=":7" /> Countries such as France and the UK, which already had policies in place that grant intellectual property rights to universities during this period, began heavily encouraging and enforcing these institutional ownership rights.<ref name=":7" /> Currently, most European countries grant universities the rights to the intellectual property of inventions developed by faculty researchers, yet a few countries such as Italy and Sweden still employ professor's privilege.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Farnstrand Damsgaard|first=E.|last2=Thursby|first2=M. C.|date=2013-02-01|title=University entrepreneurship and professor privilege|url=https://academic.oup.com/icc/article/22/1/183/882569/University-entrepreneurship-and-professor|journal=Industrial and Corporate Change|language=en|volume=22|issue=1|pages=183–218|doi=10.1093/icc/dts047|issn=0960-6491}}</ref>


Several Asian countries such as Japan have shifted towards a Bayh-Dole type legislation as well, although some countries such as Malaysia have a shared ownership model.<ref name=":8" />
Several Asian countries such as Japan have shifted towards a Bayh-Dole type legislation as well, although some countries such as Malaysia have a shared ownership model.<ref name=":8" /> However, there is a need for more research on the technology transfer process and the commercialization of university research in Asia and other countries in the world.


== Criticisms ==
== Criticisms ==
Although universities created TTOs with hopes of financial gain, many TTOs have retained losses in their commercializing activities and have not generated significant local economic development.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Trune|first=Dennis R|last2=Goslin|first2=Lewis N|date=1998-03-01|title=University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162597001650|journal=Technological Forecasting and Social Change|volume=57|issue=3|pages=197–204|doi=10.1016/S0040-1625(97)00165-0}}</ref><ref name=":10" /> This is likely due to the fact that protecting intellectual property and patenting is a costly process, and of all the patents and licenses a university issues, there a limited number of inventions that actually yield enough revenue to cover or surpass these costs. Research has shown that larger, more established TTOs are sufficiently profitable, whereas many smaller, more recent TTOs are not, and that an estimated half of TTOs retain losses in their commercializing activities (of those that do not have losses, a majority do no better than to cover their costs).<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":5" /> Even the most profitable TTOs only produce revenue that amounts to 1-3% of the total expenditures of the university's research work.<ref name=":5" /> Moreover, less than 1% of licensed technologies actually yield over $1M in revenue.<ref name=":5" /> Another criticism of TTOs is its role in the research atmosphere of the university, with many scholars arguing that its presence and purpose of engaging in commercialization activities conflicts with a university's mission of furthering knowledge and objective academic inquiry.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fleischut|first=Peter M.|last2=Haas|first2=Scott|date=2005-2|title=University Technology Transfer Offices: A Status Report|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564362/|journal=Biotechnology Healthcare|volume=2|issue=2|pages=48–53|issn=1554-169X|pmc=PMC3564362|pmid=23393451}}</ref>
Although universities created TTOs with hopes of financial gain, many TTOs have retained losses in their commercializing activities and have not generated significant local economic development.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Trune|first=Dennis R|last2=Goslin|first2=Lewis N|date=1998-03-01|title=University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162597001650|journal=Technological Forecasting and Social Change|volume=57|issue=3|pages=197–204|doi=10.1016/S0040-1625(97)00165-0}}</ref><ref name=":10" /> This is likely due to the fact that protecting intellectual property and patenting is a costly process, and of all the patents and licenses a university issues, there a limited number of inventions that actually yield enough revenue to cover or surpass these costs. Research has shown that larger, more established TTOs are sufficiently profitable, whereas many smaller, more recent TTOs are not, and that an estimated half of TTOs retain losses in their commercializing activities (of those that do not have losses, a majority do no better than to cover their costs).<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":5" /> Even the most profitable TTOs only produce revenue that amounts to 1-3% of the total research expenditures at the university.<ref name=":5" /> Moreover, less than 1% of licensed technologies actually yield over $1M in revenue.<ref name=":5" /> Another criticism of TTOs is its role in the research atmosphere of the university, with many scholars arguing that its presence and purpose of engaging in commercialization activities conflicts with a university's mission of furthering knowledge and objective academic inquiry.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fleischut|first=Peter M.|last2=Haas|first2=Scott|date=2005|title=University Technology Transfer Offices: A Status Report|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564362/|journal=Biotechnology Healthcare|volume=2|issue=2|pages=48–53|issn=1554-169X|pmc=PMC3564362|pmid=23393451|via=}}</ref>


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 15:55, 30 October 2017

University Technology Transfer Offices

University technology transfer offices (TTOs) are responsible for the commercialization of research that takes place in a university. TTOs engage in a variety of commercial activities that are meant to facilitate the process of bringing research developments to market, often acting as a channel between academia and industry.[1][2] Most major research universities have established TTOs in the past decades in an effort to increase the impact of university research and provide opportunities for financial gain. While TTOs are now commonplace, many studies have questioned their financial benefit to the university.

History

Many scholars argue that the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows federally funded research to be patented by the university, was a driving force for universities in the US to engage in technology transfer and create TTOs [3], although some studies suggest that this trend existed at various universities, such as the University of California and Stanford, before the Act was put in place.[4][5] Prior to the creation of TTOs and Bayh-Dole, many universities such as Johns Hopkins in the early 20th century did not engage in patenting and licensing for fear of interfering with their missions of supporting the growth of knowledge and objective inquiry.[6][7] Prior to the postwar period, universities relied mostly on external patent management organizations such as the Research Corporation, while few set up their own research foundations that were independent from but affiliated to the university.[6]

Research highlights a shift in universities' approaches to technology transfer between 1970-1980, often attributing it to the success of use-based research during the postwar period along with the passage of Bayh-Dole.[6] During this period, universities began taking commercializing efforts into their own hands and setting up TTOs.[6] Hence, with passage of Bayh-Dole, the creation of TTOs, and a push towards commercializing university research, universities began enforcing their rights to the intellectual property of inventions developed by faculty researchers. Through TTOs, universities have now attempted to standardize policies and procedures for research developments taking place at the university. Consequently, through the formation of TTOs, technology transfer has become a more centralized process at research universities across the US than before.

Functions

While the broad goal of TTOs is to commercialize research developments taking place at the university, they engage in numerous activities that not only bring these developments to market but also encourage and support faculty and students in the entire technology transfer process. Such encouragement may increase the chances of faculty and students creating research developments that can be commercialized. Outlined below are some of the major functions of these TTOs:

Industry Partnerships

An important task of many TTOs is to create and maintain industry partnerships that may be crucial for collaboration and bringing technologies to market.[8] Some universities such as MIT and Northwestern have entirely separate offices for industry and corporate relations, but this office typically works in conjunction with the TTO of the institution. In this case, TTOs often exploit the relationships developed by the corporate relations office, focusing more specifically on the technology transfer process itself. TTOs often employ two methods when engaging with industry partners: 1) the "pull" method, in which TTOs receive interest from industry partners in bringing specific technologies at the university to market, and 2) the "push" method, in which TTOs actively seek industry partners for this purpose.[9]

Intellectual Property

Research universities in the US now typically own the developments made by faculty in their research. Hence, it becomes one of the responsibilities of TTOs to protect the intellectual property of such inventions, which is often done through the process of patenting.[10] By patenting and protecting intellectual property, TTOs can ensure a temporary monopoly on and ownership of the underlying technologies developed by faculty at the university and leverage this ownership through licensing agreements and other commercial transactions. TTOs are thus also responsible for managing and keeping track of all the commercial research developments being made at the university as well as identifying and working with faculty members and research projects that may show great commercial promise. As a result, TTOs often retain or are partnered with patent attorneys and lawyers that specialize in intellectual property as well as scientists and engineers who can help identify promising research developments and assess the commercial viability of an invention (i.e. whether the invention is worth patenting and commercializing).

Counseling and Incubation for University Startups

TTOs at many universities often provide general business and legal counseling to foster entrepreneurship among faculty and students.[11] By providing resources, funding, and connections to university spin-offs, TTOs attempt to increase the chances of startup success, which may result in financial gain if the university owns the intellectual property of the invention or has an equity stake in the company.[11] Hence, many TTOs establish business incubators and programs for faculty and students in an attempt to enhance the entrepreneurial atmosphere among researchers at the university.[11][12] Some examples of such incubators and programs include FastForward at the Johns Hopkins University, the Blavatnik Biomedical Accelerator as well as the Physical Sciences and Engineering Accelerator at Harvard University, and the Fabrication Lab at the University of Chicago. Research has suggested that incubators at TTOs have not had a high incidence of technology transfer, despite this being one of the reasons they were established, and may even negatively impact the success of TTOs and technology transfer at the university.[12][13]

Structure & Organization

The structure and organization of TTOs can impact its overall performance and can vary among universities.[1][14] Since TTOs deal with both academic research and industry, they are comprised of a diverse set of individuals, including scientists, lawyers, analysts, licensing experts, and business managers. By having individuals (particularly different scientists, engineers, and analysts) with varying sets of expertise in research, TTOs attempt to more effectively asses, protect, and profit from the research developments taking place in multiple disciplines throughout the university.

TTOs can by classified as internal (existing as an integrated part of the university and controlled by university administration), external (existIng as an independent company that does not operate under the control of university administration), or mixed (having components of both internal and external TTOs).[14] Research has shown that internal TTOs have become the most commonly adopted structure, thus allowing the university to take control of and centralize its policies and procedures when dealing with technology transfer.[14]

Strategies

TTOs attempt to capitalize on the research developments made at the university by employing strategies focused on providing the university with opportunities for financial gain and increased research impact. A common strategy that TTOs engage in is licensing their inventions, either to an industry partner or back to the university inventor if the inventor started a company (i.e. a university spin-off).[15] Through this approach, TTOs can bring university technologies to market without having to engage in production and distribution themselves. TTOs can also take an equity stake in the spin-off company rather than licensing the technology.[16] Some research has suggested that equity in spin-off companies may provide higher returns than licensing[17], but this strategy seems to be more common with TTOs that are financially independent from the parent university (i.e. external TTO structure).[1] While these strategies vary greatly among TTOs at different universities, a majority of them employ some combination of licensing and equity stakes, with licensing being a more standard practice.[17]

International diffusion & TTOs outside the US

As many major research universities across the US began to adopt TTOs, institutions outside the US became attracted to the idea of taking control of their commercialization activities as well. Prior to the 2000s, many German-speaking and Scandinavian countries had a policy of "professor's privilege", in which faculty retain the right to control the intellectual property of their inventions. In recent years, many OECD and EU nations created legislation that emulated Bayh-Dole, in an attempt to increase the commercialization activities and impact of their respective research universities.[18][19] Denmark was among the first to abolish professor's privilege, followed by Germany, Austria, Norway and Finland between 2000-2007.[18] Countries such as France and the UK, which already had policies in place that grant intellectual property rights to universities during this period, began heavily encouraging and enforcing these institutional ownership rights.[18] Currently, most European countries grant universities the rights to the intellectual property of inventions developed by faculty researchers, yet a few countries such as Italy and Sweden still employ professor's privilege.[18][20] Hence, there has been a marked increase in the commercializing activities of universities and creation of TTOs in Europe.[18][19]

Several Asian countries such as Japan have shifted towards a Bayh-Dole type legislation as well, although some countries such as Malaysia have a shared ownership model.[20] However, there is a need for more research on the technology transfer process and the commercialization of university research in Asia and other countries in the world.

Criticisms

Although universities created TTOs with hopes of financial gain, many TTOs have retained losses in their commercializing activities and have not generated significant local economic development.[3][21][7] This is likely due to the fact that protecting intellectual property and patenting is a costly process, and of all the patents and licenses a university issues, there a limited number of inventions that actually yield enough revenue to cover or surpass these costs. Research has shown that larger, more established TTOs are sufficiently profitable, whereas many smaller, more recent TTOs are not, and that an estimated half of TTOs retain losses in their commercializing activities (of those that do not have losses, a majority do no better than to cover their costs).[21][3] Even the most profitable TTOs only produce revenue that amounts to 1-3% of the total research expenditures at the university.[3] Moreover, less than 1% of licensed technologies actually yield over $1M in revenue.[3] Another criticism of TTOs is its role in the research atmosphere of the university, with many scholars arguing that its presence and purpose of engaging in commercialization activities conflicts with a university's mission of furthering knowledge and objective academic inquiry.[22]

References

This template should only be used in the user namespace.This template should only be used in the user namespace.

  1. ^ a b c Rothaermel, F. T.; Agung, S. D.; Jiang, L. (2007-08-01). "University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature". Industrial and Corporate Change. 16 (4): 691–791. doi:10.1093/icc/dtm023. ISSN 0960-6491.
  2. ^ The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship.
  3. ^ a b c d e Shapin, Steven (11 September 2003). "Ivory Trade" (PDF). Harvard.edu. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  4. ^ Mowery, David C.; Sampat, Bhaven N. (2004-12-01). "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?". The Journal of Technology Transfer. 30 (1–2): 115–127. doi:10.1007/s10961-004-4361-z. ISSN 0892-9912.
  5. ^ Mowery, David C; Nelson, Richard R; Sampat, Bhaven N; Ziedonis, Arvids A (2001-01-01). "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980". Research Policy. 30 (1): 99–119. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6.
  6. ^ a b c d Sampat, Bhaven N. (2006-07-01). "Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole". Research Policy. Property and the pursuit of knowledge: IPR issues affecting scientific research. 35 (6): 772–789. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.009.
  7. ^ a b Feldman, Maryann; Desrochers, Pierre (2003-03-01). "Research Universities and Local Economic Development: Lessons from the History of the Johns Hopkins University". Industry and Innovation. 10 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1080/1366271032000068078. ISSN 1366-2716.
  8. ^ Etzkowitz, Henry (1998-12-01). "The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages". Research Policy. 27 (8): 823–833. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6.
  9. ^ Lee, Peter (2009). "Interface: The Push and Pull of Patents". Fordham Law Review. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  10. ^ Siegel, Donald S; Waldman, David; Link, Albert (2003-01-01). "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study". Research Policy. 32 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.
  11. ^ a b c O'Shea, Rory P.; Allen, Thomas J.; Chevalier, Arnaud; Roche, Frank (2005-09-01). "Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities". Research Policy. The Creation of Spin-off Firms at Public Research Institutions: Managerial and Policy Implcations. 34 (7): 994–1009. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011.
  12. ^ a b Phillips, Rhonda G. (2002-08-01). "Technology business incubators: how effective as technology transfer mechanisms?". Technology in Society. 24 (3): 299–316. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00010-6.
  13. ^ Kolympiris, Christos; Klein, Peter G. (2017-06-01). "The Effects of Academic Incubators on University Innovation". Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 11 (2): 145–170. doi:10.1002/sej.1242. ISSN 1932-443X.
  14. ^ a b c Brescia, F.; Colombo, G.; Landoni, P. "Organizational structures of Knowledge Transfer Offices: an analysis of the world's top-ranked universities". The Journal of Technology Transfer. 41 (1): 132–151. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9384-5.
  15. ^ Macho-Stadler, Inés; Pérez-Castrillo, David; Veugelers, Reinhilde (2007-06-01). "Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office". International Journal of Industrial Organization. 25 (3): 483–510. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.06.001.
  16. ^ Lockett, Andy; Wright, Mike; Franklin, Stephen. "Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies". Small Business Economics. 20 (2): 185–200. doi:10.1023/a:1022220216972.
  17. ^ a b Bray, Michael J; Lee, James N (2000-09-01). "University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions". Journal of Business Venturing. 15 (5): 385–392. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00034-2.
  18. ^ a b c d e Geuna, Aldo; Rossi, Federica (2011-10-01). "Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting". Research Policy. Special Issue: 30 Years After Bayh-Dole: Reassessing Academic Entrepreneurship. 40 (8): 1068–1076. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.008.
  19. ^ a b "Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships". www.oecd-ilibrary.org. Retrieved 2017-10-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  20. ^ a b Farnstrand Damsgaard, E.; Thursby, M. C. (2013-02-01). "University entrepreneurship and professor privilege". Industrial and Corporate Change. 22 (1): 183–218. doi:10.1093/icc/dts047. ISSN 0960-6491.
  21. ^ a b Trune, Dennis R; Goslin, Lewis N (1998-03-01). "University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 57 (3): 197–204. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(97)00165-0.
  22. ^ Fleischut, Peter M.; Haas, Scott (2005). "University Technology Transfer Offices: A Status Report". Biotechnology Healthcare. 2 (2): 48–53. ISSN 1554-169X. PMC 3564362. PMID 23393451.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_technology_transfer_offices&oldid=807872551"