Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
{{Article
|Has page=Mowery Ziedonis (2001) - How Has The Bayh Dole Act Affected Us University Patenting And Licensing
|Has bibtex key=
|Has article title=How Has The Bayh Dole Act Affected Us University Patenting And Licensing
|Has author=Mowery Ziedonis
|Has year=2001
|In journal=
|In volume=
|In number=
|Has pages=
|Has publisher=
}}
*This page is referenced in [[BPP Field Exam Papers]]
===History of University IP Policy===
The timeline for funding sources for R&D at public and private university in the US is loosely as follows:
**Key players include the Department of Defense, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) (now the HHS, which includes the NIH)
*1970's to 2000: Federal funding declines, private funding increases again. By 1997, federal funding is at 59% and private at 7%.
 
In the post war period, many federal agencies allowed patenting of funded research under Institutional Patent Agreements (IPAs), which were negotiated by individual univerities. Tensions in these agreements, over exclusivity, intensified in the late 1970s, when the HEW wanted to limit exclusive licensing.
 
'''AUTM ''' is the Association of University Technology Managers
 
'''Bayh-Dole''' is the Bayl-Dole act of 1980 (see below)
 '''TTO''' is a Technology Transfer Office (Ed's jargon) 
UC:
The timeline for UC policy was:
*1926: All employees required to report patentable inventions (MIT, University of Wisconsin, and others were similar)
*1963: Members of faculty and employees required to disclose inventions and licenses
Stanford:
The timeline for Stanford policy was:
*1970: Office of Technology Licensing established (disclose optional)
*1994: Disclosure manadatory, assignment of patents to the university required, copyright to software belongs to the university
**At the same time overall patenting per R&D dollar was declining.
*AUTM reports that the number of univerity TTOs increased from 25 (1980) to over 200 (1990)
 
==Results==
**Issued percentage of patents shrank - suggest decline in quality
**Share of licenses yeilding positive royalties shrank dramatically
**Though any patent with a marginal positive benefit greater than its cost of issue (assuming research costs are sunk) should be applied for.
*Patents from UC, Stanford and Columbia more frequently cited that non-academic - implying higher quality
*UC and Stanford's patents appear to have increased in importance post 1980 (as measured by citations)

Navigation menu