Skip to main content
Log in

A reply to Etzkowitz’ comments to Leydesdorff and Martin (2010): technology transfer and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three periods can be distinguished in university patenting at the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) since the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980: (1) a first period of exponential increase in university patenting till 1995 (filing date) or 1999 (issuing date); (2) a period of relative decline since 1999; and (3) in most recent years—since 2008—a linear increase in university patenting. We argue that this last period is driven by specific non-US universities (e.g., Tokyo University and Chinese University) patenting increasingly in the USA as the most competitive market for high-tech patents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. Other analysts (e.g., Langford et al. 2006) have also criticized the focus on spin-offs or licensing as too narrow and neglectful of a number of other important paths in knowledge flows.

References

  • AUTM. (1997). US Licensing Survey 1996. Deerfield IL: Association of University Transfer Managers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (in press). Mistaking dawn for dusk: Quantophrenia and the cult of numerology in technology transfer analysis—A comment to: Leydesdorff L. and Meyer M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics.

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix—university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Stevens, A. J. (1998). Inching toward industrial policy: the university’s role in government initiatives to assist small, innovative companies in the United States. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, & P. Healy (Eds.), Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia (pp. 215–238). New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, K. S., Park, H. W., So, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the triple helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics, 90(1), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton-Smith, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (in preparation). The triple helix in the context of global change: continuing, mutating, and unraveling.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2003). A methodological perspective on the evaluation of the promotion of university–industry–government relations. Small Business Economics, 22(2), 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The triple helix of university–industry–government relations: Introduction to the topical issue. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics, 83(2), 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zawdie, G. (2010). The triple helix perspective of innovation systems. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(7), 789–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, G. N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Grant, K., & Kuusisto, J. (2013). The second coming of the triple helix and the emergence of hybrid innovation environments. In R. Capello, A. Olechnicka, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Universities, cities and regions: Loci for knowledge and innovation creation (pp. 193–209). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishimura, Y. (2011). Recent trends of technology transfers and business-academia collaborations in Japanese universities. Journal of Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration, 7(1), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1973). Wissenschaftsentwicklung und wissensschaftssteuerung. Frankfurt a.M: Athenaeum Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. J. (2004). The enactment of Bayh–Dole. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Daele, W., Krohn, W., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (1979). Geplante forschung: vergleichende studien über den einfluss politischer programme auf die wissenschaftsentwicklung. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venditti, M., Reale, E., & Leydesdorff, L. The disclosure of university research for third parties: A non-market perspective on an Italian University. Science and Public Policy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5684.

  • Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83(1), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loet Leydesdorff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M. A reply to Etzkowitz’ comments to Leydesdorff and Martin (2010): technology transfer and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics 97, 927–934 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0997-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0997-5

Keywords

Navigation