The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980

Growth during the 1980s and 1990s in patenting and licensing by American universities is frequently asserted to be a direct consequence of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. However, there has been little empirical analysis of the effects of this legislation. This paper uses previously unexploited data to c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Research policy 2001, Vol.30 (1), p.99-119
Hauptverfasser: Mowery, David C, Nelson, Richard R, Sampat, Bhaven N, Ziedonis, Arvids A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 119
container_issue 1
container_start_page 99
container_title Research policy
container_volume 30
creator Mowery, David C
Nelson, Richard R
Sampat, Bhaven N
Ziedonis, Arvids A
description Growth during the 1980s and 1990s in patenting and licensing by American universities is frequently asserted to be a direct consequence of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. However, there has been little empirical analysis of the effects of this legislation. This paper uses previously unexploited data to consider the effects of Bayh–Dole at three leading universities: the University of California, Stanford University, and Columbia University. Two of these universities (California and Stanford) were active in patenting and licensing before Bayh–Dole, and one (Columbia) became active only after its passage. The evidence suggests that Bayh–Dole was only one of several important factors behind the rise of university patenting and licensing activity. Bayh–Dole also appears to have had little effect on the content of academic research at these universities. A comparison of these three universities reveals remarkable similarities in their patent and licensing portfolios 10 years after the passage of the Bayh–Dole Act. The concluding section raises several questions about the effects of Bayh–Dole and related policy shifts that are not addressed by this analysis but that deserve attention in future research.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_223243305</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0048733399001006</els_id><sourcerecordid>65096600</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-68c44d08399506d52f97462647d5d865a1cfbc1912feea24732150da48c3f4dd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1OGzEUha2KSg20j1DJYgWLSf0_YzYVpdAiIXUBrC1jXxOjZGZqO0HZ9R36hn2SehLKtovjqyudc671IfSRkjklVH26JUR0Tcs5P9H6lBBKSKPeoBntWt60iskDNHu1vEOHOT-R6hJEz9Dz3QLwYxqeywIPAY-2QF9i_4ht7_EyOujztD1s8f38do7XfdxAyrFEyGfVg23OkPOqhqZ4qWUQAriS_61f7Hbx59fvr8MSsHU7F9UdeY_eBrvM8OFlHqH7q8u7i-_NzY9v1xfnN42TTJdGdU4ITzqutSTKSxZ0KxRTovXSd0pa6sKDo5qyAGCZaDmjkngrOseD8J4foeN975iGn2vIxTwN69TXk4YxzgTnRFaT3JtcGnJOEMyY4sqmraHETIjNDrGZ-BmtzQ6xUTV3vc8lGMG9hgAgQR6HpdkYbjmpz7aK1VgdsWqaY1XtolSbRVnVrs_7Lqg0NhGSyS5C78DHVHkaP8T__OYvoP2baQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223243305</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980</title><source>RePEc</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Mowery, David C ; Nelson, Richard R ; Sampat, Bhaven N ; Ziedonis, Arvids A</creator><creatorcontrib>Mowery, David C ; Nelson, Richard R ; Sampat, Bhaven N ; Ziedonis, Arvids A</creatorcontrib><description>Growth during the 1980s and 1990s in patenting and licensing by American universities is frequently asserted to be a direct consequence of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. However, there has been little empirical analysis of the effects of this legislation. This paper uses previously unexploited data to consider the effects of Bayh–Dole at three leading universities: the University of California, Stanford University, and Columbia University. Two of these universities (California and Stanford) were active in patenting and licensing before Bayh–Dole, and one (Columbia) became active only after its passage. The evidence suggests that Bayh–Dole was only one of several important factors behind the rise of university patenting and licensing activity. Bayh–Dole also appears to have had little effect on the content of academic research at these universities. A comparison of these three universities reveals remarkable similarities in their patent and licensing portfolios 10 years after the passage of the Bayh–Dole Act. The concluding section raises several questions about the effects of Bayh–Dole and related policy shifts that are not addressed by this analysis but that deserve attention in future research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0048-7333</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7625</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6</identifier><identifier>CODEN: REPYBP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Bayh–Dole ; Colleges &amp; universities ; Federal legislation ; Licenses ; R&amp;D ; Research &amp; development ; Studies ; Technology Transfer ; University Research</subject><ispartof>Research policy, 2001, Vol.30 (1), p.99-119</ispartof><rights>2001 Elsevier Science B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Jan 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-68c44d08399506d52f97462647d5d865a1cfbc1912feea24732150da48c3f4dd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-68c44d08399506d52f97462647d5d865a1cfbc1912feea24732150da48c3f4dd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733399001006$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,3994,4010,27900,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeerespol/v_3a30_3ay_3a2001_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a99-119.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mowery, David C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Richard R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampat, Bhaven N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziedonis, Arvids A</creatorcontrib><title>The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980</title><title>Research policy</title><description>Growth during the 1980s and 1990s in patenting and licensing by American universities is frequently asserted to be a direct consequence of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. However, there has been little empirical analysis of the effects of this legislation. This paper uses previously unexploited data to consider the effects of Bayh–Dole at three leading universities: the University of California, Stanford University, and Columbia University. Two of these universities (California and Stanford) were active in patenting and licensing before Bayh–Dole, and one (Columbia) became active only after its passage. The evidence suggests that Bayh–Dole was only one of several important factors behind the rise of university patenting and licensing activity. Bayh–Dole also appears to have had little effect on the content of academic research at these universities. A comparison of these three universities reveals remarkable similarities in their patent and licensing portfolios 10 years after the passage of the Bayh–Dole Act. The concluding section raises several questions about the effects of Bayh–Dole and related policy shifts that are not addressed by this analysis but that deserve attention in future research.</description><subject>Bayh–Dole</subject><subject>Colleges &amp; universities</subject><subject>Federal legislation</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>R&amp;D</subject><subject>Research &amp; development</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Technology Transfer</subject><subject>University Research</subject><issn>0048-7333</issn><issn>1873-7625</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1OGzEUha2KSg20j1DJYgWLSf0_YzYVpdAiIXUBrC1jXxOjZGZqO0HZ9R36hn2SehLKtovjqyudc671IfSRkjklVH26JUR0Tcs5P9H6lBBKSKPeoBntWt60iskDNHu1vEOHOT-R6hJEz9Dz3QLwYxqeywIPAY-2QF9i_4ht7_EyOujztD1s8f38do7XfdxAyrFEyGfVg23OkPOqhqZ4qWUQAriS_61f7Hbx59fvr8MSsHU7F9UdeY_eBrvM8OFlHqH7q8u7i-_NzY9v1xfnN42TTJdGdU4ITzqutSTKSxZ0KxRTovXSd0pa6sKDo5qyAGCZaDmjkngrOseD8J4foeN975iGn2vIxTwN69TXk4YxzgTnRFaT3JtcGnJOEMyY4sqmraHETIjNDrGZ-BmtzQ6xUTV3vc8lGMG9hgAgQR6HpdkYbjmpz7aK1VgdsWqaY1XtolSbRVnVrs_7Lqg0NhGSyS5C78DHVHkaP8T__OYvoP2baQ</recordid><startdate>2001</startdate><enddate>2001</enddate><creator>Mowery, David C</creator><creator>Nelson, Richard R</creator><creator>Sampat, Bhaven N</creator><creator>Ziedonis, Arvids A</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JQ2</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2001</creationdate><title>The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980</title><author>Mowery, David C ; Nelson, Richard R ; Sampat, Bhaven N ; Ziedonis, Arvids A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c529t-68c44d08399506d52f97462647d5d865a1cfbc1912feea24732150da48c3f4dd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Bayh–Dole</topic><topic>Colleges &amp; universities</topic><topic>Federal legislation</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>R&amp;D</topic><topic>Research &amp; development</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Technology Transfer</topic><topic>University Research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mowery, David C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Richard R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sampat, Bhaven N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ziedonis, Arvids A</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Research policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mowery, David C</au><au>Nelson, Richard R</au><au>Sampat, Bhaven N</au><au>Ziedonis, Arvids A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980</atitle><jtitle>Research policy</jtitle><date>2001</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>99</spage><epage>119</epage><pages>99-119</pages><issn>0048-7333</issn><eissn>1873-7625</eissn><coden>REPYBP</coden><abstract>Growth during the 1980s and 1990s in patenting and licensing by American universities is frequently asserted to be a direct consequence of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. However, there has been little empirical analysis of the effects of this legislation. This paper uses previously unexploited data to consider the effects of Bayh–Dole at three leading universities: the University of California, Stanford University, and Columbia University. Two of these universities (California and Stanford) were active in patenting and licensing before Bayh–Dole, and one (Columbia) became active only after its passage. The evidence suggests that Bayh–Dole was only one of several important factors behind the rise of university patenting and licensing activity. Bayh–Dole also appears to have had little effect on the content of academic research at these universities. A comparison of these three universities reveals remarkable similarities in their patent and licensing portfolios 10 years after the passage of the Bayh–Dole Act. The concluding section raises several questions about the effects of Bayh–Dole and related policy shifts that are not addressed by this analysis but that deserve attention in future research.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0048-7333
ispartof Research policy, 2001, Vol.30 (1), p.99-119
issn 0048-7333
1873-7625
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_223243305
source RePEc; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Bayh–Dole
Colleges & universities
Federal legislation
Licenses
R&D
Research & development
Studies
Technology Transfer
University Research
title The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T10%3A30%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20growth%20of%20patenting%20and%20licensing%20by%20U.S.%20universities:%20an%20assessment%20of%20the%20effects%20of%20the%20Bayh%E2%80%93Dole%20act%20of%201980&rft.jtitle=Research%20policy&rft.au=Mowery,%20David%20C&rft.date=2001&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=99&rft.epage=119&rft.pages=99-119&rft.issn=0048-7333&rft.eissn=1873-7625&rft.coden=REPYBP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E65096600%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223243305&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0048733399001006&rfr_iscdi=true