Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T08:35:18.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

By
David C. Mowery
Edited by
Zoltan J. Acs ,
David B. Audretsch  and
Robert J. Strom
David C. Mowery
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Zoltan J. Acs
Affiliation:
George Mason School of Public Policy, Fairfax
David B. Audretsch
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Robert J. Strom
Affiliation:
Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City
Get access

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 - 283
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,American Medical Association. 1937. Principles of Medical Ethics.
,Association of University Technology Managers. 2001. AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 2001. Northbrook, Ill.: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
,Association of University Technology Managers. 2002. AUTM Licensing Survey, FY 2002. Northbrook, Ill.: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
Barrett, Paul. 1980. “Harvard Fears Congress May Not Pass Patent Bill.” Harvard Crimson, October 7.Google Scholar
Broad, William. 1979a. “Patent Bill Returns Bright Idea to Inventor (in News and Comment).”Science (August 3), 473–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, William. 1979b. “Whistle Blower Reinstated at HEW.” Science, 476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christie, Katerina L. Gaita, Howlett, Melanie J., and Webster, Elisabeth M.. 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
Cohen, Wesley M., and Levinthal, Daniel A.. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Wesley M., Florida, Richard, Randazzese, Lucien, and Walsh, John. 1998. “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance.” In Noll, R. (ed.), Challenges to the Research University. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Cohen, Wesley M., Nelson, Richard R., and Walsh, John. 2002. “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D.” Management Science, 48, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Columbia University Committee on Patents. August 1974. “Patent Policy.” Columbiana Archives, “Patents” Folder, Columbia University in the City of New York.
Colyvas, Jeannette, Crow, Michael, Gelijns, Anettine, Mazzoleni, Robert, Nelson, Richard R., Rosenberg, Nathan, and Sampat, Bhaven N.. 2002. “How Do University Inventions Get into Practice?” Management Science, 48, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, Robert. 2001. Dr. Folkman's War: Angiogenesis and the Struggle to Defeat Cancer. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Cottrell, F. 1932. “Patent Experience of the Research Corporation.” Transactions of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.Google Scholar
Dertouzos, Michael, Lester, Richard, and Solow, Robert M.. 1989. Made in America. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DiGregorio, Dante, and Shane, Scott. 2003. “Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-ups Than Others?” Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 1996. “Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research.” Virginia Law Review, 1663–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, N. 1978. “Dole Blasts HEW for ‘Stonewalling’ Patent Applications.” Bioscience, 605–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzkowitz, Henry. 1994. “Knowledge as Property: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Debate of Academic Patent Policy.” Minerva, 32(Winter), 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Federal Council on Science and Technology (FCST). 1978. Report on Government Patent Policy, 1973–1976. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geiger, Roger L. 1993. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geiger, Roger L. 2004. Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, Brent, and Henrekson, Magnus. 2003. “Bottom-Up versus Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property.” Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Government University Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR). 1991. Industrial Perspectives on Innovation and Interactions with Universities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Graham, Hugh D., and Diamond, Nancy. 1997. The Rise of American Research Universities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn H., and Ziedonis, Rosemarie H.. 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
Harbridge, House. 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
Harbridge, House. 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
Henderson, Rebecca, Jaffe, Adam B., and Trajtenberg, Manuel. 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
Henderson, Rebecca, Jaffe, Adam B., and Trajtenberg, Manuel. 1998b. “University Patenting Amid Changing Incentives for Commercialization.” In Creation and Transfer of Knowledge, Navaretti, G. Barba, Dasgupta, P., Mäler, K. G., and Siniscalco, D., eds. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Henig, R. 1979. “New Patent Policy Bill Gathers Congressional Support.” Bioscience, 29, 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Sally S. 2001. “Making Dollars out of DNA.” Isis, 92, 541–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,“Innovation's Golden Goose.” 2002. The Economist, December 12.
Jensen, Richard, and Thursby, Marie. 2001. “Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions.” American Economic Review, 91, 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Michael L., and Ordover, J. A.. 1990. “R&D Competition and Cooperation.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 137–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Martin. 1986. Biotechnology: The University-Industry Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevles, Daniel. 1994. “Ananda Chakrabarty Wins a Patent: Biotechnology, Law, and Society, 1973–1980.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 25, 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilger, Christian, and Bartenbach, Kurt. 2002. “New Rules for German Professors.” Science, 298, 1173–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leslie, Stuart. 1993. The Cold War and American Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Richard C., Klevorick, Alvin K., Nelson, Richard R., and Winter, Sidney G.. 1987. “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, Robert A. 2001. “The Role and Experience of Start-Ups in Commercializing University Inventions: Start-up Licensees at the University of California.” In Libecap, G., ed., Entrepreneurial Inputs and Outcomes. Amsterdam: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. 1991. “Academic Research and Industrial Innovations.” Research Policy, 20, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, David C. 1999. “America's Industrial Resurgence (?): An Overview.” In Mowery, D. C., ed., U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Mowery, David C., and Rosenberg, Nathan. 1998. Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, David C., and Sampat, Bhaven N.. 2001a. “Patenting and Licensing University Inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 317–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, David C., and Sampat, Bhaven N.. 2001b. “University Patents, Patent Policies, and Patent Policy Debates, 1925–1980.”Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowery, David C., and Sampat, Bhaven N.. 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
Mowery, David C., and Ziedonis, Arvids. 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
Mowery, David C., Nelson, Richard R., Sampat, Bhaven N., and Ziedonis, Arvids. 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
,National Science Board. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
,OECD. 2000. A New Economy? The Changing Role of Innovation and Information Technology in Growth. Paris.
Palmer, Archie M. 1957. Medical Patents. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.Google Scholar
Reimers, Niels. 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
,Research Corporation. 1974–1975. Annual Report. New York and Tucson, Arizona.
Rosenberg, Nathan, and Nelson, Richard R.. 1994. “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry.” Research Policy, 23, 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shane, Scott. 2002. “Selling University Technology.” Management Science, 48, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Ashley J. 2004. “The Enactment of Bayh-Dole.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thursby, Jerry, Jensen, Richard, and Thursby, Marie C.. 2001. “Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trow, M. 1979. “Aspects of Diversity in American Higher Education.” In Gans, H. (ed.), On the Making of Americans. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Trow, M. 1991. “American Higher Education: ‘Exceptional’ or Just Different?” In Shafer, B. E. (ed.), Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
,University of California Office of the President. 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.
,U.S. General Accounting Office. 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.
,U.S. House of Representatives. 1980. “Floor Debate on H.R. 6933.”Congressional Record, November 21, 1980: 30556–30560.Google Scholar
,U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. 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.
Weiner, Charles. 1989. “Patenting and Academic Research: Historical Case Studies.” In Weil, V. and Snapper, J.W. (eds.), Owning Scientific and Technical Information. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Weissman, Robert. 1989. “Public Finance, Private Gain: The Emerging University-Business-Government Alliance and the New U.S. Technological Order.” Harvard University Undergraduate Thesis.Google Scholar
Zucker, Lynn G., and Darby, Michael R.. 1998. “Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises.” American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.Google Scholar
Zucker, Lynn G., Darby, Michael R., and Torero, Maximo. 2002. “Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce.” Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 629–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×