Search results

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.

Licensing from US universities is done within the overall legal framework of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and the employment agreements of universities. This chapter explains common contracts used by universities to license technologies developed by their faculty and students within the context of these laws. In addition to the legal framework, the nature of license agreements is affected by the embryonic nature of most university inventions, which necessitates faculty and student involvement in development, and the entrepreneurial goals of the university. Universities have diverse goals in terms of revenue, licenses executed, inventions commercialized, patents filed, and number of startups formed. The somewhat obvious problem is that the goals of faculty, students, the university, and the licensee may not be aligned. Common contracts used are meant to align these goals. While some contracts include multiple terms such as upfront fees, running royalties, annual payments, and equity, Express Licenses are increasingly being used to accommodate the entrepreneurial environment. This chapter discusses these issues and also the importance of the rights to sublicense inventions.

In this chapter we provide a general overview of the university licensing process and its dramatic growth over the past decade. We then discuss the role faculty play in commercialization through the licensing process. Concerns have been voiced in recent years over the possibility that the recent growth in university licensing suggests that the traditional role of faculty in the generation of “basic” research results – as well, possibly, as their role in “open science” – has been compromised. We discuss the available evidence for this downside to faculty licensing. Finally, we consider several impediments to the licensing process.

Based on cue utilization theory, this study aims to examine effects of the style (fashion vs basic) and licensing status (licensed vs nonlicensed) of university-related apparel products (URAPs) as intrinsic and extrinsic cues, respectively, impacting university fans’ responses (i.e. attitudes, purchase intentions and purchase behaviors) and the moderating roles of personal factors (i.e. perceived university prestige, quality consciousness and uniqueness seeking).

Data were collected via an online quasi-experiment employing a 2 (licensing status: licensed vs nonlicensed) × 2 (style: basic vs fashion) within-subjects design with a purposeful sample of 1,126 students and alumni of a Southeastern American university.

Results show that consumers generally responded more favorably to licensed (vs nonlicensed) URAPs, especially for basic styles, whereas their responses to fashionable URAPs were more favorable for nonlicensed (vs licensed) URAPs. Furthermore, the positive effects of licensing status were stronger for consumers with high (vs low) perceived university prestige or quality consciousness. Consumers generally more favorably responded to basic (vs fashion) URAPs, but this style effect was weaker among those with a high (vs low) uniqueness seeking tendency.

Theoretical explanations on URAP consumption have been scant in the product and brand management literature. This study fills this literature gap by conceptualizing extrinsic (i.e. licensing status) and intrinsic (i.e. style) cues crucial in URAP consumption from a cue utilization theory lens and demonstrating empirical evidence for the intricate interplays among the two cues and diverse personal characteristics.

Scientific knowledge has characteristics of a pure public good. It is non-rivalrous in the sense that once generated, it is neither depleted nor diminished by use. Knowledge is also non-excludable since, once it is made available, in the absence of clearly defined property rights, users cannot be excluded from using it. These aspects imply that private market mechanisms will not provide adequate incentives for knowledge creation. Legal property rights, such as patents, are one means of dealing with this problem. Patronage in the form of government support for research provides another solution, as does the priority system of awarding credit for scientific discoveries to the first to find them. In the last two decades, there has been a growth in the relative importance of the use of legal property rights in the university setting and with it a growing controversy as to whether the costs may be outweighing the benefits. In this chapter, we discuss issues and evidence with regard to the ownership and licensing of publicly funded research intellectual property rights (IPR). We begin with an overview of incentives created by the patent system and discuss the ways in which these incentives differ from traditional norms of science. We then draw on the legal and economic literatures which distinguish among the incentives to invent, disclose, and innovate, and argue that the rationale for providing IPR for university research stems from the last of these. Finally, we discuss the available evidence on the creation and diffusion of academic research under current IPR regimes.

This chapter explains the structure of two contracts commonly involved in university licensing: the license granting a company (or companies) outside the university rights to make, sell, or lease products or processes based on a university invention, and the nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that plays a role in the license negotiation process. In the context of the Bayh–Dole Act, the chapter explains that license contracts often contain a complex combination of payment terms intended to provide sufficient incentives for licensees to undertake the (often risky) development of embryonic research. The authors relate the intent of the Bayh–Dole Act to the concerns of university licensing professionals who often negotiate licensing agreements. The chapter then examines the same incentive issues (and the universal contract issues of money, risk, control, standards, and endgame) in the context of NDAs, used by potential licensing partners to protect their respective interests while sharing information about a licensable technology. The chapter concludes with an assignment that provides students with an opportunity to evaluate a license, not from the university's perspective but from that of a client interested in licensing an invention owned by the university.

The author considers the success in practice of small firms in obtaining technology and new products from universities, under licensing agreements and through other technology transfer activities. His analysis draws heavily upon research into the use of technology licensing by small and medium sized firms, carried out at Bath University over the previous three years.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between consumers’ purchase motivations to show support for university programs and the influence of merchandise quality cues on their purchase decision, and examine how one's affiliation with a university (official or non-official) moderates this relationship.

This research utilized a mail survey of university bookstore customers from the USA and Canada. The university, located in the USA, has an international reputation for its academic programs, its athletic teams, and its religious affiliation.

Our findings demonstrate the significance of athletic programs over academic programs and religious values in motivating purchases of licensed university merchandise.

These findings have significant implications for several stakeholders in the business of retailing licensed merchandise. In particular, university licensors and their bookstore retailers may consider managing their inventory of licensed products to reflect the greater relative importance athletic teams have in the purchase decision process.

This paper adds to our understanding of customer motivations to purchase university licensed merchandise, and the conditions when merchandise quality is a key decision driver.

This work tries to shed light on what factors can influence, positively or negatively, the decision to license a patent from a university, in order to offer some recommendations that can contribute to increasing the number of patents licensed from universities.

Based on a sample of researchers at Spanish universities who have already registered patents, this work shows that the individual factors of the researcher outweigh the institutional factors in determining the decision to patent an invention. Likewise, the probability of patenting an invention is higher when the researcher's level of participation in the process is greater.

The results of our study allow us to affirm that, in the Spanish university setting, individual factors play a more important role in one's decision to license a patent than institutional factors. In this sense, the collaboration of companies or experts from outside of academia in the research from which the patent was granted is the most relevant factor.

This work, the first study of this type to be carried out in Europe, concludes with a recommendation for reinforcing the structure and functionality of technology transfer offices as a basic policy for the promotion and facilitation of commercial exploitation of innovation in the universities.

Este trabajo intenta arrojar luz sobre qué factores pueden influir, positiva o negativamente, en la decisión de licenciar una patente de una universidad, con el fin de ofrecer algunas recomendaciones que puedan contribuir a aumentar el número de patentes universitarias.

Basado en una muestra de investigadores en universidades españolas que ya han registrado patentes, este trabajo muestra que los factores individuales superan a los factores institucionales a la hora de determinar la decisión de patentar una invención. Asimismo, la probabilidad de patentar una invención es mayor cuando el nivel de participación del investigador en el proceso es mayor.

Los resultados de nuestro estudio nos permiten afirmar que, en el ámbito universitario español, los factores individuales juegan un papel más importante en la decisión de solicitar una patente que los factores institucionales. En este sentido, la colaboración de empresas o expertos de fuera de la academia en la investigación a partir de la cual se otorgó la patente es el factor más relevante.

Este trabajo es el primer estudio de este tipo que se realiza en Europa y concluye con una recomendación para reforzar la estructura y la funcionalidad de las oficinas de transferencia de tecnología (OTRI) como política básica para la promoción de la explotación comercial de la innovación en las universidades.