747
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
*Regression of licensing outcomes (sponsored research, royalties, patents) to stated objectives of the TTO and invention characteristics
====Data Sources====
→Thursby, J., Jensen, Thursby, M.: Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities (2001)
**All universities split income with inventors
**Royalties generate most of the revenue of licensing
*Open question: Is the increased propensity of faculty to disclose a response to financial incentives or an increase in the effectiveness of TTOs in inducing disclosure?
*90% of universities allow faculty to establish and operate businesses based on technology owned by university but developed in faculty's research
*Inventions disclosed: 33% med schools, 29% engineering, 22% science, 6% agriculture, 10% other
*Majority of invention disclosures in nascent stage (proof of concept - 45% or prototype- 37%)*Patents often applied for after knowing commercial viability, licensed technologies often not protected by patents*60% of universities said small companies more likely to take early stage technologies and large companies more likely to take late stage - small firms may have advantage in "innovative" research (Holmstrom 1989)*TTOs obtain smaller upfront fees the more uncertain the technology being licensed is*Universities usually do not take equity in the license Regression of licensing outcomes (sponsored research, royalties, patents) to stated objectives of the TTO and invention characteristics*Dependent variables: royalties, sponsored research, patents (new applications), licenses executed*Independent variables: importance of outcome to TTO, types of inventions, measure of size of university's licensing operation/potential
====Critiques====
