Informal University Technology Transfer: A Comparison between the United States and Germany

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp09033.pdf Non-technical summaryKnowledge produced in the public sector has frequently been shown to be an important ingredient of economic growth and technological change. Most of the existing research puts emphasis on formal university technology transfer mechanisms (i.e. those that embody or directly lead to a legal instrument like a patent, license or royalty agreement). Few authors have investigated informal university technology transfer mechanisms. Informal technology transfer focuses primarily on interactions of the agents involved (i.e. on university scientists and industry personnel) where property rights are of secondary importance. While formal technology transfer mechanisms frequently aim at transferring a research result like a patent or a license to use a technology, informal mechanisms do not, and there is usually no expectation that they will. In this sense, formal technology transfer is a mechanism to allocate property rights whereas informal technology transfer is much more about communication among individuals. Examples could be contacts between academics and industry personnel at conferences, joint publications, academic consulting, or other informal contacts, talks and meetings.However, existing research shows that many university scientists in the United States do not disclose their inventions to their university although prescribed by law. University administrators will therefore have an interest to better understand the determinants of informal technology transfer given their objective to create revenues for the university. In the United States, the commercialization of technology developed by university scientists had been spurred by the enactment of the BayhDole Act in 1980. In Germany, an equivalent to the Bayh-Dole Act only came into force 20 years later in 2002. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to shed light on the effects that institutional differences might have on the choice of scientists to transfer technology informally. We present comparative findings for Germany based on a recent paper by which has focused on the United States. Moreover, we extend their previous findings by focusing on two neglected factors more explicitly: the scientist's individual productivity as well as the research environment in which the informal technology transfer takes place.Based on a comprehensive sample of more than 800 German university scientists, our U....

Peer Effects and Academics’ Industry Involvement: The Moderating Role of Age on Professional Imprinting

“…We also find that engineering scientists are significantly more engaged with industry while there are no other significant discipline 25 effects. Existing literature that documents disciplinary effects is thus confirmed (e.g., Grimpe and Fier, 2010). Prior patent applications of the scientist turn out to have no effect on industry involvement.…”

“…Formal involvement is typically based on a patent to be sold or licensed out (Bozeman, 2000;Thursby and Thursby, 2002), collaboration in R&D (Laursen et al, 2011) or industrial consulting (Jensen et al, 2010), while informal channels of interaction might involve joint publication of research results with industry personnel or informal contacts (Link et al, 2007;Grimpe and Fier, 2010).…”

Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities

“…Cesaroni and Piccaluga 2005;Potì and Reale 2005;Bach and Llerena 2007;Moutinho et al 2007). Some include patenting as a predictor of other phenomena, like publication output (Buenstorf 2009), academic entrepreneurship (Krabel and Mueller 2009) and technology transfer (Grimpe and Fier 2010). However, to our knowledge, the only application of the patent production function in the context of PRO-owned patents is the work by Azagra et al (2007b), which provides microeconomic evidence for the case of CSIC, the largest Spanish PRO.…”

The Role of Research Orientation for Attracting Competitive Research Funding

“…Most importantly, the previous scientific performance of the research unit's heads may also impact the attraction of grants (e.g. Murray 2002, Viner et al 2004, Grimpe and Fier 2009. Thus, the survey data has been supplemented with publication and patent information.…”