University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and Intellectual Property (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Volume 16)

335 Pages·2005·2.32 MB·English

UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:
PROCESS, DESIGN, AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
i
ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF
ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC
GROWTH
Series Editor: Gary D. Libecap
Recent Volumes:
Volume10: Legal,RegulatoryandPolicyChangesthatAffect
Entrepreneurial Midsize Firms, 1998
Volume 11: The Sources of Entrepreneurial Activity, 1999
Volume 12: Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth in the
American Economy, 2000
Volume 13: Entrepreneurial Inputs and Outcomes: New
Studies of Entrepreneurship in the United States,
2001
Volume 14: Issues In Entrepreneurship: Contracts, Corporate
Characteristics and Country Differences, 2002
Volume 15: Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, 2004
ii
ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH VOLUME 16
UNIVERSITY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER: PROCESS,
DESIGN, AND
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
EDITED BY
GARY D. LIBECAP
The University of Arizona, USA
2005
Amsterdam – Boston – Heidelberg – London – New York – Oxford
Paris – San Diego – San Francisco – Singapore – Sydney – Tokyo
iii
ELSEVIERB.V. ELSEVIERInc. ELSEVIERLtd ELSEVIERLtd
Radarweg29 525BStreet,Suite1900 TheBoulevard,Langford 84TheobaldsRoad
P.O.Box211 SanDiego Lane,Kidlington London
1000AEAmsterdam CA92101-4495 OxfordOX51GB WC1X8RR
TheNetherlands USA UK UK
r2005ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
ThisworkisprotectedundercopyrightbyElsevierLtd,andthefollowingtermsandconditionsapplytoitsuse:
Photocopying
Singlephotocopiesofsinglechaptersmaybemadeforpersonaluseasallowedbynationalcopyrightlaws.Permission
ofthePublisherandpaymentofafeeisrequiredforallotherphotocopying,includingmultipleorsystematiccopying,
copying for advertising or promotional purposes, resale, and all forms of document delivery. Special rates are
availableforeducationalinstitutionsthatwishtomakephotocopiesfornon-profiteducationalclassroomuse.
PermissionsmaybesoughtdirectlyfromElsevier’sRightsDepartmentinOxford,UK:phone[phone],fax
([phone],e-mail:[e-mail]edon-lineviatheElsevier
homepage(http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions).
IntheUSA,usersmayclearpermissionsandmakepaymentsthroughtheCopyrightClearanceCenter,Inc.,222
RosewoodDrive,Danvers,MA01923,USA;phone:[phone],fax:[phone],andintheUK
throughtheCopyrightLicensingAgencyRapidClearanceService(CLARCS),90TottenhamCourtRoad,London
W1P0LP,UK;phone:[phone];fax:[phone].Othercountriesmayhavealocalreprographic
rightsagencyforpayments.
DerivativeWorks
Tablesofcontentsmaybereproducedforinternalcirculation,butpermissionofthePublisherisrequiredforexternal
resaleordistributionofsuchmaterial.PermissionofthePublisherisrequiredforallotherderivativeworks,including
compilationsandtranslations.
ElectronicStorageorUsage
PermissionofthePublisherisrequiredtostoreoruseelectronicallyanymaterialcontainedinthiswork,includingany
chapterorpartofachapter.
Exceptasoutlinedabove,nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystemortransmittedinany
formorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutpriorwrittenpermission
ofthePublisher.
Addresspermissionsrequeststo:Elsevier’sRightsDepartment,atthefaxande-mailaddressesnotedabove.
Notice
NoresponsibilityisassumedbythePublisherforanyinjuryand/ordamagetopersonsorpropertyasamatterof
productsliability,negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseoroperationofanymethods,products,instructionsor
ideascontainedinthematerialherein.Becauseofrapidadvancesinthemedicalsciences,inparticular,independent
verificationofdiagnosesanddrugdosagesshouldbemade.
Firstedition2005
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
AcataloguerecordisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN: 0-7623-1230-0
ISSN: 1048-4736(Series)
∞ ThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstherequirementsofANSI/NISOZ39.48-1992(PermanenceofPaper).
PrintedinTheNetherlands.
Working together to grow
libraries in developing countries
www.elsevier.com | www.bookaid.org | www.sabre.org
iv
CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS vii
INTRODUCTION
Gary D. Libecap ix
ANALYZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF UNIVERSITY
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: IMPLICATIONS FOR
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Donald S. Siegel and Phillip H. Phan 1
THE BAYH-DOLE ACT AND HIGH-TECHNOLOGY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN U.S. UNIVERSITIES:
CHICKEN, EGG, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
David C. Mowery 39
THE KNOWLEDGE SPILLOVER THEORY OF
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TECHNOLOGICAL
DIFFUSION
David B. Audretsch, Max Keilbach and Erik Lehmann 69
CURIOSITY-DRIVEN RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITY
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Katherine J. Strandburg 93
THE IRRATIONALITY OF SPECULATIVE GENE
PATENTS
David E. Adelman 123
v
vi CONTENTS
COMMERCIALIZING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
SYSTEMS IN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE: A VIEW
FROM THE DEMAND SIDE
Brett M. Frischmann 155
PROS AND CONS OF FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN
LICENSING
Jerry G. Thursby and Marie C. Thursby 187
INTRODUCING TECHNOLOGY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO GRADUATE EDUCATION:
AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH
Marie C. Thursby 211
AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF UNIVERSITY
TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALIZATION AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Arthur A. Boni and S. Thomas Emerson 241
ORGANIZATIONAL MODULARITY AND
INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Andrew Nelson and Thomas Byers 275
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
David E. Adelman The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,
USA
David B. Audretsch Ameritech Chair of Economic
Development, Indiana University, Institute
for Development Strategies, Bloomington,
IN, USA
Arthur A. Boni Tepper School of Business, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Thomas Byers Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
S. Thomas Emerson Tepper School of Business, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
BrettM.Frischmann Loyola University Chicago School of Law,
Chicago, IL, USA
Max Keilbach Max Planck Institute of Economics,
Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public
Policy Research Group, Jena, Germany
Erik Lehmann Max Planck Institute of Economics,
Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public
Policy Research Group, Jena, Germany
Gary D. Libecap The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ,
USA
David C. Mowery University of California, Berkeley,
Berkeley, CA, USA
Andrew Nelson Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Phillip H. Phan RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute,Troy,NY,
USA
Donald S. Siegel RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute,Troy,NY,
USA
vii
viii LIST OFCONTRIBUTORS
Katherine J. DePaul University, College of Law,
Strandburg Chicago, IL, USA
Jerry G. Thursby Department of Economics, Emory College,
Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Marie C. Thursby College of Management, Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
INTRODUCTION
American universities, indeed, universities throughout the world, arefacing
increaseddemandtosharetheknowledgedeveloped withintheircampuses.
Historically, students pass knowledge to the greater society. But since at
least the 1960s, the university’s research role has dramatically increased,
with more and more resources devoted to basic and applied research in the
physical and biological sciences, engineering, humanities, social sciences,
and managementfields. Not all of this research can be transmitted through
the graduation of students. Research on basic scientific and life processes
and engineering also eventually results in applications in new products and
processes. Given the large investment in university research, society natu-
rally seeks greater returns through patents, licensing, and new business
starts. Local and state governments, especially, look to universities for job
creation and economic growth through greater knowledge transfer.
In addition to these external demands, administrators and faculty within
universities grow more interested in the potential from knowledge transfer.
They believe students have better chances for employment with experience
in commercialization; they believe that revenues from royalties and other
licensing revenue can augment declining government support of their ac-
ademic programs; they believe that the academic reputation of their insti-
tutions can be enhanced with greater success in knowledge transfer; and
finally,theybelievethatall levels ofgovernmentwill bemore supportiveof
theinstitutionifitrevealsaclearinterestandsuccessinknowledgetransfer.
Butinternaldemanddoesnotcomeonlyfromadministratorsandfaculty.
Students want greater emphasis on the practical application of their uni-
versity-based knowledge. They want greater training in commercialization,
knowledge that is applicable to real-world problems and hence will be de-
manded by employers. Finally, they have intellectual demands to see how
university ideas might be modified to meet economic and social needs.
In the face of growing external and internal demands for knowledge
transfer, universities have responded by investing in augmented technology
transfer or licensing offices, adding courses and programs in commercial-
ization, and perhaps most importantly, broadening administrative and ac-
ademicsupportforknowledgetransfer.Theemphasisisnolongersolelyon
ix