Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- ENTREPRENEURSHIP, GROWTH, AND PUBLIC POLICY
- 1 Introduction: Why Entrepreneurship Matters
- PART I THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN INNOVATION
- PART II LINKING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO GROWTH
- PART III POLICY
- 10 Entreprenomics
- 11 The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s
- 12 Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe
- 13 Creating an Entrepreneurial Economy
- 14 “Entrepreneurial Capitalism” in Capitalist Development
- Index
- References
11 - The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- ENTREPRENEURSHIP, GROWTH, AND PUBLIC POLICY
- 1 Introduction: Why Entrepreneurship Matters
- PART I THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN INNOVATION
- PART II LINKING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO GROWTH
- PART III POLICY
- 10 Entreprenomics
- 11 The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s
- 12 Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe
- 13 Creating an Entrepreneurial Economy
- 14 “Entrepreneurial Capitalism” in Capitalist Development
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Assessments of the economic contributions of high-technology entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship to U.S. economic growth and competitiveness have shifted somewhat since the 1980s. During the 1990s, the era of the “New Economy,” numerous observers hailed the resurgent economy in the United States as an illustration of the power of high-technology entrepreneurship. The new firms that a decade earlier had been criticized by such authorities as the MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity for their failure to compete successfully against non-U.S. firms were seen as important sources of economic dynamism and employment growth. Indeed, the transformation in U.S. economic performance between the 1980s and 1990s is only slightly less remarkable than the failure of experts in academia, government, and industry to predict it.
University–industry research collaboration and technology transfer, especially the licensing by U.S. universities of patented inventions, was cited by a number of accounts as a central cause of U.S. economic resurgence in the 1990s, and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 has been credited for growth in such collaboration. Implicit in many of these characterizations was the argument that university patenting and licensing have enhanced high-technology entrepreneurship and the economic contributions of U.S. university research. Similar characterizations of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act have been articulated by the President of the Association of American Universities and the Commissioner of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Public Policy , pp. 250 - 283Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
. 1937. Principles of Medical Ethics.
. 2001. AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 2001. Northbrook, Ill.: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
. 2002. AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 2002. Northbrook, Ill.: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
. 1980. “Harvard Fears Congress May Not Pass Patent Bill.” Harvard Crimson, October 7.Google Scholar
. 1979a. “Patent Bill Returns Bright Idea to Inventor (in News and Comment).”Science (August 3), 473–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 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
, and . 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 1998. “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance.” In (ed.), Challenges to the Research University. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
, , and . 2002. “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D.” Management Science, 48, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. August 1974. “Patent Policy.” Columbiana Archives, “Patents” Folder, Columbia University in the City of New York.
, , , , , , and . 2002. “How Do University Inventions Get into Practice?” Management Science, 48, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Dr. Folkman's War: Angiogenesis and the Struggle to Defeat Cancer. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
. 1932. “Patent Experience of the Research Corporation.” Transactions of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.Google Scholar
, and . 2003. “Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-ups Than Others?” Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research.” Virginia Law Review, 1663–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1978. “Dole Blasts HEW for ‘Stonewalling’ Patent Applications.” Bioscience, 605–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Knowledge as Property: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Debate of Academic Patent Policy.” Minerva, 32(Winter), 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Report on Government Patent Policy, 1973–1976. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
. 1986. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
, and . 2003. “Bottom-Up versus Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property.” Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Industrial Perspectives on Innovation and Interactions with Universities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
, and . 1997. The Rise of American Research Universities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
, and . 2001. “The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979–1995.” RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1968a. “Effects of Patent Policy on Government R&D Programs.” Government Patent Policy Study, Final Report., vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Federal Council for Science and Technology.Google Scholar
. 1968b. “Effects of Government Policy on Commercial Utilization and Business Competition.”Government Patent Policy Study, Final Report, vol. IV. Washington, D.C.: Federal Council for Science and Technology.Google Scholar
, , and . 1998a. “Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 1965–1988.” Review of Economics & Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 1998b. “University Patenting Amid Changing Incentives for Commercialization.” In Creation and Transfer of Knowledge, , , , and , eds. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
. 1979. “New Patent Policy Bill Gathers Congressional Support.” Bioscience, 29, 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
.” 2002. The Economist, December 12.
, and . 2001. “Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions.” American Economic Review, 91, 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1990. “R&D Competition and Cooperation.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 137–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Biotechnology: The University-Industry Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Ananda Chakrabarty Wins a Patent: Biotechnology, Law, and Society, 1973–1980.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 25, 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2002. “New Rules for German Professors.” Science, 298, 1173–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and . 1987. “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “The Role and Experience of Start-Ups in Commercializing University Inventions: Start-up Licensees at the University of California.” In , ed., Entrepreneurial Inputs and Outcomes. Amsterdam: JAI Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Academic Research and Industrial Innovations.” Research Policy, 20, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “America's Industrial Resurgence (?): An Overview.” In , ed., U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
, and . 1998. Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2001a. “Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 317–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2001b. “University Patents, Patent Policies, and Patent Policy Debates, 1925–1980.”Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2004. “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?” Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2002. “Academic Patent Quality and Quantity Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States.” Research Policy, 31(3), 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
. 2000. A New Economy? The Changing Role of Innovation and Information Technology in Growth. Paris.
. 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, Calif.: Bancroft Library.Google Scholar
. 1974–1975. Annual Report. New York and Tucson, Arizona.
, and . 1994. “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry.” Research Policy, 23, 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The Enactment of Bayh-Dole.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2001. “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1979. “Aspects of Diversity in American Higher Education.” In (ed.), On the Making of Americans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. “American Higher Education: ‘Exceptional’ or Just Different?” In (ed.), Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. 5 Years of Progress: A Summary Report on the Results of the 1997 President's Retreat on the University of California's Relationships with Industry in Research and Technology Transfer. Oakland: University of California Office of the President.
. 1968. Problem Areas Affecting Usefulness of Results of Government-Sponsored Research in Medicinal Chemistry: A Report to the Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
. 1980. “Floor Debate on H.R. 6933.”Congressional Record, November 21, 1980: 30556–30560.Google Scholar
. 1979. The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act: Hearings on S. 414, May 16 and June 6. 96th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
. 1989. “Patenting and Academic Research: Historical Case Studies.” In and (eds.), Owning Scientific and Technical Information. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. “Public Finance, Private Gain: The Emerging University-Business-Government Alliance and the New U.S. Technological Order.” Harvard University Undergraduate Thesis.Google Scholar
, and . 1998. “Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises.” American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.Google Scholar
, , and . 2002. “Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce.” Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 629–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by