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.
Notes
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.
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.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The triple helix of university–industry–government relations: Introduction to the topical issue. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics, 83(2), 355–362.
Leydesdorff, L., & Zawdie, G. (2010). The triple helix perspective of innovation systems. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(7), 789–804.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1973). Wissenschaftsentwicklung und wissensschaftssteuerung. Frankfurt a.M: Athenaeum Verlag.
Stevens, A. J. (2004). The enactment of Bayh–Dole. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 93–99.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0997-5