Search results

How prospective or emerging technologies can be supported through government-funded research projects has gradually received global attention. However, previous studies have primarily focused on the effects of government funding on subsequent technological development, the overall economy or social welfare of a country or corporate research and development (R&D) activities. These studies have not examined the technology distribution and development trends of government-funded research from a comprehensive technology perspective. In addition, previous measurements of the influence of government-funded R&D projects faced the difficulty of transferring the research achievements of government-funded research to the commercial market.

Patents can provide a preliminary understanding of the collaboration, development focus and status of market technologies. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the development directions of patented technologies engendered from government-funded research projects. Analyzing the network of government-funded patented technologies helped identify the current status and location of specific technologies in a patent network as well as the hotspot technologies in government-funded research projects that correspond to the market.

The results of this study indicated that the technologies obtaining government-funded patents mainly consist of advanced materials and semiconductors and that the technological focus has shifted over the years. Nanotechnology, pharmaceutical technology and sanitary technology have gradually become the technologies receiving most of government-funded patents. The trend of development of these technologies also corresponds to the emerging technologies advocated by countries worldwide in recent years.

This study provided a comprehensive verification of the government-funded patented technologies from a macro perspective by identifying key technologies using technology network analysis. The findings of this study can serve as a reference for the allocation of governmental R&D resources and the promotion of novel technologies in the private sector.

Universities face incredibly difficult, complex decisions concerning the degree to which they participate in the process of commercializing research. The U.S. government has made an explicit policy decision to allow funded entities to obtain patents and thereby has encouraged participation in the commercialization of federally funded research. The Bayh-Dole Act enables universities to participate in the commercialization process, but it does not obligate or constrain them to pursue any particular strategy with respect to federally funded research. Universities remain in the driver's seat and must decide carefully the extent to which they wish to participate in the commercialization process.The conventional view of the role of patents in the university research context is that patent-enabled exclusivity improves the supply-side functioning of markets for university research results as well as those markets further downstream for derivative commercial end-products. Both the reward and commercialization theories of patent law take patent-enabled exclusivity as the relevant means for fixing a supply-side problem – essentially, the undersupply of private investment in the production of patentable subject matter or in the development and commercialization of patentable subject matter that would occur in the absence of patent-enabled exclusivity.While the supply-side view of the role of patents in the university research context is important, a view from the demand side is needed to fully appreciate the role of patents in the university research context and to fully inform university decisions about the extent to which they wish to participate in the commercialization process. Introducing patents into the university research system, along with a host of other initiatives aimed at tightening the relationship between universities and industry, is also (if not primarily) about increasing connectivity between university science and technology research systems and the demands of industry for both university research outputs (research results and human capital) and upstream infrastructural capital necessary to produce such outputs.In this chapter, I explore how university science and technology research systems perform economically as infrastructural capital and explain how these systems generate social value. I explain how the availability of patents, coupled with decreased government funding, may lead to a slow and subtle shift in the allocation of infrastructure resources.

Current pharmaceutical global pricing strategies functionally exclude developing countries from the market for drugs to treat many diseases. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate some of the proposed patent reward models to determine their feasibility in the current environment.

A review of a variety of proposals including special financing or tax arrangements, public‐private partnerships, and government‐funded patent purchases are briefly reviewed. A more in‐depth examination of the recently proposed health impact fund (HIF) is undertaken.

In brief, the HIF requires developed countries to donate to a fund that finances the release of pharmaceutical patents. The pharmaceutical companies would be reimbursed over a ten‐year period from the government donation pool based on the medicine's health impact. The expected consequence of this policy would be affordable medicines for developed and developing countries. This examination highlights deficiencies in the current HIF strategy and offers a number of suggestions mostly focused on a more balanced sharing of the inherent risks in pharmaceutical product development to improve the strategies viability.

Although among the proposed strategies, the HIF offers the most promise, the suggested changes would result in a program viewed more favourably by the pharmaceutical industry and participating countries.

Although it is recognized that pricing challenges are limiting the availability to essential medications in developing countries, current strategies often ignore many of the market dynamics for pharmaceuticals. This critique, focused on the HIF strategy, is presented in an effort to improve the likely success of the most promising of these strategies.

Academic entrepreneurship (defined in this case as the involvement of university faculty and researchers in commercial development of their inventions) has been a unique characteristic of the U.S. higher education system for most of the past 100 years. This long history of interaction, as well as academic patenting and licensing, contributed to the formation of the political coalitions that led to the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980. This paper reviews the evidence on university–industry interactions and technology transfer, focusing in particular on the role of the Bayh-Dole Act in (allegedly) transforming this relationship. I also examine recent research that considers the Act's effects on the formation of new, knowledge-based firms that seek to exploit university inventions. This research is in its infancy, and much remains to be done if we are to better understand the relationships among high-technology entrepreneurship, the foundation of new firms, and the patenting and licensing activities of U.S. universities before and after 1980.

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of the innovation environment of a developing nation through the Triple Helix model, revealing the existing inter-relationships between the three Helixes of Academia–Industry–Government. It sets out to find out the relationship and impact of the three Helixes on the most crucial stage of the innovation process: the commercialisation of patents, and to ascertain if there is a varying impact determined by patent ownership.

This cross-sectional study uses the survey method based on the views expressed by 220 Sri Lankan registered patent holders and categorised by organisational and individual ownership. The sample is drawn from the database of the National Intellectual Property Office of Sri Lanka and patents registered through the Patent Cooperation Treaty, extracted from the World Intellectual Property Organisation Patent Scope database. The survey was carried out in 2019 and limited to patents registered during the period 2010–2014.

The empirical findings indicate weak inter-relationship between Academia support, Industry support and patent commercial success, while the support of the Government Helix is non-significant in the commercial stage. The findings also indicate two different support standards existing in each Helix for the two ownership groups.

The study is limited to a five-year window in a relatively early period in the country’s innovation policy development. The study model is also limited by the non-inclusion of mediators such as government-backed affiliated agencies and academia technical transfer offices which if incorporated would improve the study model and be more reflective of the actual environment and their role as change agents bridging the transition to a hybrid Triple Helix.

The study findings capture the inter-relationships of the Triple Helix existing in a developing country at the most crucial stage of the innovation process. It helps policymakers identify the gaps in each Helix that stands wanting and take measures to rectify them by creating a more favourable National Innovation System. An innovative environment that will facilitate patent holders achieve higher technological transfers and commercial success rates.

The findings disclosure of two different support standards existing in each Helix for the two patent ownership groups poses a challenge for policymakers and challenges the core objective of increasing the commercial success of patents granted. The findings strengthen the need for a more robust support system to be put in place that would empower and facilitate the individual patent owner to increase the share of economic value arising from this underutilised patent group.

This study contributes by furthering the Triple Helix model in a social context and micro-setting by operationalising the theoretical practices. The study also gives insight into each Helix’s interaction and contribution during the most crucial stage of innovation management in a developing economy and its impact on the two categories of patent ownership which is scarce.

Field theory is one of the most visible approaches in the new political sociology of science, and Fligstein & McAdam’s (F&M) Theory of Fields is the most visible recent attempt to further it. This paper evaluates F&M’s theory of field transformation by comparing it with Berman’s (2012a) field-based explanation of the changes in the field of US academic science. While F&M’s general framework is quite useful, their explanation, which focuses on struggles between incumbents and challengers over whose conception of the field should dominate, does not map neatly onto the changes in academic science, which saw no such field-level struggles. This suggests that tools are also needed for explaining new settlements that do not result from intentional efforts to establish them. In particular, the case of US academic science shows that local innovations with practices based on alternative conceptions of the field can lead to field-level change. Attention to the interaction between local practice innovations and larger environments provides insights into how change ripples across fields, as well as the ongoing contention and dynamism within even relatively stable fields.

Innovation is the fundamental driving force for the long-term sustainable development of an economy. After four decades of rapid economic growth, China is facing crises related to a demographic structure of “aging before getting rich,” industrial overcapacity of low-end products and environmental and resources constraints. This paper aims to discuss these issues.

Based on logical analysis and recapitulation of previous empirical research, this study presents the conclusion.

Scientific and technological innovation, as strategic support to improve social productivity and overall national strength, must be placed at the center of the country’s overall development.

The development model that preys upon cheap resources for extensive growth is unsustainable. Thus, the country needs an urgent strategic switch to drive its economic growth through research and development innovation and original technological advancement.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the emergence of organized academic entrepreneurship in the context of institutional complexity, in which multiple institutional logics co-exist. The paper is focused on the dynamics of internal legitimation of new research commercialization initiatives and the interrelations between internal and external legitimacy and their underlying institutional logics.

Based on a historical case study of the founding of Yeda Research and Development Company at the Weizmann Institute of Science in 1959, the paper examines the rhetorical struggles between the proponents and opponents of the company. The analysis is based on archival data and focuses on the analysis of a meeting of the Institute’s Scientific Committee in which the new company was introduced and debated.

The findings show the strengths and limitations of rhetorical legitimation work in supporting the establishment of new organizational initiatives. Rhetorical strategies that bridge the different institutional logics in the field can enable the emergence of new enterprises. Yet, when organizational practices do not concur with the institutional logic on which internal legitimacy is based, new organizational initiatives become illegitimate and organizational actors withdraw their support.

This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the under-researched process of constructing internal legitimacy for an organizational change, both in general and in the specific context of academic entrepreneurship. Further, this study contributes new insights to research on the historical process of the emergence of organized research commercialization in universities in the context of institutional complexity.

This historical example of the creation of the arms industry in the Connecticut River Valley in the 1800s provides new insights into the value of government venture capital (GVC) and government demand in creating a new industry. Since current theoretical explanations of the best uses of governmental venture capital are still under development, there is considerable need for further theory development to explain and predict the creation of an industry and especially those industries where failures in private capital supply necessitates governmental involvement in new firm creation. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in depth historical review of how the arms industry evolved spurred by GVC and government created demand.

This study uses abductive inference as the best way to build and test emerging theories and advancing theoretical explanations of the best uses of GVC and governmental demand to achieve socially required outcomes.

By observing this specific historical example in detail, the authors add to the understanding of value creation caused by governmental venture capital funding of existing theory. A major contribution of this paper is to advance theory based on detailed observation.

The relatively limited research literature and theory development on governmental venture capital funding and the critical success factors in startups are enriched by this abductive investigation of the creation of the historically important arms industry and its spillover into creating the specialized machine industry.

This chapter asks: How do COVID-19 conspiracy theories about Bill Gates work? In order to provide an answer, it analyses social media artefacts that make conspiratorial claims about Bill Gates such as the ones that he manufactured the virus, makes money from COVID-19 vaccines, plans to dominate the world and erect a dictatorship, and implants surveillance microchips into humans via COVID-19 vaccinations. The focus is on artefacts that have massively spread and have reached high visibility on social media and the Internet. A critical discourse analysis was conducted of this material.

The findings show that and how COVID-19 conspiracy theories construct the existence of a secret elite that dominates the world, use ideological strategies such as the personalisation of domination, the friend/enemy scheme, rational irrationality and logical determinism. COVID-19 conspiracy theories are a necrophilic ideology, an ideology of death that advances death and increases the number of deaths. This pandemic ideology tries to convince humans that vaccines are harmful and that COVID-19 is a hoax, whereby human misery is advanced. COVID-19 conspiracy theories are to a large degree a right-wing ideology.