全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2014 

Industry-University Collaborations in Canada, Japan, the UK and USA – With Emphasis on Publication Freedom and Managing the Intellectual Property Lock-Up Problem

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090302

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

As industry-university collaborations are promoted to commercialize university research and foster economic growth, it is important to understand how companies benefit from these collaborations, and to ensure that resulting academic discoveries are developed for the benefit of all stakeholders: companies, universities and public. Lock up of inventions, and censoring of academic publications, should be avoided if feasible. This case-study analysis of interviews with 90 companies in Canada, Japan, the UK and USA assesses the scope of this challenge and suggests possible resolutions. The participating companies were asked to describe an important interaction with universities, and most described collaborative research. The most frequently cited tensions concerned intellectual property management and publication freedom. IP disagreements were most frequent in the context of narrowly-focused collaborations with American universities. However, in the case of exploratory research, companies accepted the IP management practices of US universities. It might make sense to let companies have an automatic exclusive license to IP from narrowly defined collaborations, but to encourage universities to manage inventions from exploratory collaborations to ensure development incentives. Although Canada, the UK and US have strong publication freedom guarantees, tensions over this issue arose frequently in focused collaborations, though were rare in exploratory collaborations. The UK Lambert Agreements give sponsors the option to control publications in return for paying the full economic cost of a project. This may offer a model for the other three countries. Uniquely among the four countries, Japan enables companies to control exclusively most collaborative inventions and to censor academic publications. Despite this high degree of control, the interviews suggest many companies do not develop university discoveries to their full potential. The steps suggested above may rebalance the situation in Japan. Overall, the interviews reveal the complexity of these issues and the need for flexibility on the part of universities and companies.

References

[1]  Florida R, Cohen WM (1999) Engine or infrastructure? The university's role in economic development. In: Branscomb LM, Kodama F, Florida R, editors. Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press, Cambridge. pp. 589–610.
[2]  Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT (2001) Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: evidence from the Advanced Technology Program. Journal of Technology Transfer 22: 87–98.
[3]  Perkmann M, Tartari V, McKelvey M, Autio E, Bronstrom A, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialization: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42: 423–442. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
[4]  Plewa C, Korff N, Johnson C, Macpherson G, Baaken T, et al. (2013) The evolution of university-industry linkages—a framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 30: 21–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.005
[5]  Bruneel J, D'Este P, Salter A (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 39: 858–868. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
[6]  Wohlin C, Aurum A, Angelis L, Phillips L, Dittrich Y, et al. (2012) Success factors powering industry-academia collaboration. IEEE Software: 67–73.
[7]  Ankrah SN, Burgess TF, Grimshaw P, Shaw NE (2013) Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: what single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation 33: 50–65. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.001
[8]  Lee YS (2000) The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer 25: 111–133.
[9]  Santoro MD, Chakrabarti AK (2002) Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy 31: 1163–1180. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00190-1
[10]  Cohen WM, Nelson R, Walsh J (2002) The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48: 1–23. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
[11]  Motohashi K (2005) University–industry collaborations in Japan: the role of new technology-based firms in transforming the national innovation system. Research Policy 34: 583–594. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.001
[12]  Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) (2009) University-Business Interaction: a Comparative Study of Mechanisms and Incentives in Four Developed Countries (Vol. II). Unpublished report available from authors.
[13]  Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) (2011) AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey Highlights: FY2010. Available: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?Sect?ion=FY_2010_Licensing_Survey&Template=/C?M/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6870. Accessed 22 Dec. 2013.
[14]  Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2012) Heisei 23-nendo: Daigakunado ni okeru sangaku renkei-tō jisshi jōkyō ni tsuite [FY 2011: Status of University implementation of university-industry technology transfer] (in Japanese). Available: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shinkou/san?gaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/10/26/13?27174_01.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec. 2013.
[15]  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2012) UK universities Contribute to Economic Growth. Available: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/?2012/news73740.html. Accessed 15 Dec. 2013.
[16]  Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) (2013) AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey FY2012 Highlights. Available: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?Sect?ion=FY2012_Licensing_Activity_Survey&Tem?plate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1?1435. Accessed 15 Dec. 2013.
[17]  Wright M, Clarysse B, Lockett A, Knockaert M (2008) Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy 37: 1205–1223. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021
[18]  Jarvis L (2008) New deal: seeking closer ties, drug companies and universities shake up the model for research alliances. Chemical Engineering News 86: 13–20. doi: 10.1021/cen-v086n045.p013
[19]  Geiger R (2012) University supply and corporate demand for academic research. Journal of Technology Transfer 37: 175–191. doi: 10.1007/s10961-010-9192-5
[20]  Geiger R (2008) Corporate-Sponsored Research at Penn State: Report to the Office of the Vice President for Research. Available: http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/cshe/working-?papers/1%20%28Geiger%29.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec. 2013
[21]  National Science Board (NSB) (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (Appendix Table 5-3, Sources of S&E R&D funds at private and public academic institutions: Selected years). Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/in?dex.cfm/appendix/tables.htm#c5. Accessed 13 Feb. 2014.
[22]  Barbolla A, Corredera J (2009) Critical factors for success in university-industry research projects. Technology Management and Strategic Analysis 21: 599–616. doi: 10.1080/09537320902969133
[23]  Van Dierdonck R, Debackere K, Engelen B (1990) University-industry relationships: how does the Belgian academic community feel about it? Research Policy 19: 551–566. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(90)90012-u
[24]  Rappert B, Webster A, Charles D (1999) Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy 28: 873–890. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00028-1
[25]  Hertzfeld HR, Link AN, Vonortas NN (2006) Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy 35: 825–838. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.006
[26]  Edwards MG, Murray F, Yu R (2003) Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nature Biotechnology 21: 618–624. doi: 10.1038/nbt0603-618
[27]  Lach S, Schankerman M (2008) Incentives and invention in universities. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 403–433. doi: 10.1111/j.0741-6261.2008.00020.x
[28]  Vogel G (1997) Long-suppressed study finally sees light of day. Science 276: 523–525. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5312.523d
[29]  Baird P, Downie J, Thompson J (2002) Clinical trials and industry. Science: 297.
[30]  Naylor CD (2002) Early Toronto experience with new standards for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166: 453–456.
[31]  Roush W (1997) Secrecy dispute pits Brown researcher against company. Science 276: 523–525. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5312.523a
[32]  Russell S (2000) Firm that paid for UCSF study seeks damages. San Francisco Chronicle, 1 Nov.
[33]  Blumenthal D, Campbell E, Anderson M, Causino NE, Louis K (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 277: 1224–1228. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390054035
[34]  Marshall E (1997) Secretiveness found widespread in life sciences. Science 276: 523–525. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5312.523c
[35]  Zinner DE, Bolcic-Jankovic D, Clarridge B, Blumenthal D, Campbell EG (2009) Participation of academic scientists in relationships with industry. Health Affairs 28: 1814–1825. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.1814
[36]  Canadian Association of University Teachers (2012) Guiding Principles for University Collaborations. Available: http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/p?rofessional-advice/guiding-principles-fo?r-university-collaborations-%28april-201?2%29%281%29.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 19 Dec. 2013.
[37]  Kondro W (2013) In Canada, a stern critique of university-industry collaborations (ScienceInsider). Science (online). Available: http://news.sciencemag.org/education/201?3/11/canada-stern-critique-university-in?dustry-collaborations. Accessed 19 Dec. 2013.
[38]  Sohn SY, Lee MY (2012) Conjoint analysis of R&D contract agreements for industry-funded university research. Journal Technology Transfer 37: 532–549. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9220-0
[39]  Brown R, Ternouth P (2006) International Competitiveness: Business Working with UK Universities. London: The Council for Industry and Higher Education. (Report available at http://heer.qaa.ac.uk/SearchForSummaries?/Summaries/Pages/BCRI26.aspx. Accessed 10 Feb. 2014.)
[40]  Cosh A, Hughes A, Lester RK (2006) U.K. plc: Just How Innovative Are We? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge-MIT Institute.
[41]  Kneller R (2007) Japan's new technology transfer system and the pre-emption of university discoveries by sponsored research and co-inventorship. Industry and Higher Education 21: 211–220 (Originally published 2006 in the Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 18: 15–35.). doi: 10.5367/000000007781236925
[42]  Kneller R (2010) Importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 9: 867–882. doi: 10.1038/nrd3251
[43]  Christensen CM (1993) The rigid disk drive industry: a history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review 67: 531–588. doi: 10.2307/3116804
[44]  Christensen CM (1997) The Innovator's Dilemma, When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[45]  Hall B, Ziedonis R (2003) The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics 32: 101–128. doi: 10.2307/2696400
[46]  Arora A, Merges R (2004) Specialized supply firms, property rights and firm boundaries. Industrial and Corporate Change 13: 451–475. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth018
[47]  Watanabe Toshiya (2012) Sangaku renkei ni kansuru ikutsu ka no ronten - Inobēshon ni shisuru sangaku renkei no tame ni [Issues related to industry-university collaboration – towards cooperation that supports innovation]. Presentation on 2 July to the Committee for the Promotion of Industry-Academic-Government Collaboration of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology (MEXT) (in Japanese).
[48]  Kneller R (2011) Invention management in Japanese universities and its implications for innovation: insights from the University of Tokyo. In: Wong PK, editor. Academic Entrepreneurship in Asia: The Role and Impact of Universities in National Innovation Systems. Cheltenham UK: Elgar. pp. 69–85.
[49]  Kneller R (2013) Commercializing promising but dormant Japanese industry-university joint discoveries via independent, venture capital funded spin-offs. In: Hishida, K, editor. Fulfilling the Promise of Technology Transfer: Fostering Innovation for the Benefit of Society. Tokyo: Springer. pp 23–33.
[50]  Kneller R (2007) Bridging Islands: Venture Companies and the Future of Japanese and American Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (In particular, Chapter 3, available at www.kneller.asia.)
[51]  Van Eecke P, Kelly J, Bolger P, Truyens M (2008) Monitoring and Analysis of Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Regimes and Their Use: Results of a Study Carried Out on Behalf of the European Commission. Gent, Belgium: Story Publications. Chapters 3 & 7.
[52]  LaFrance M (2005) A Comparative Study of United States and Japanese Laws on Collaborative Inventions, and the Impact of Those Laws on Technology Transfers. Scholarly Works. Paper 436. Available: http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/436. Accessed 22 Dec. 2013.
[53]  Study Committee on Large Enterprise Ventures (2008) Proposal by the Study Committee on Large Enterprise Ventures: Win-win Growth for both Large Enterprises and Ventures (English version of report commissioned by the New Energy Development Organization (NEDO) of the Ministry or Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). Original Japanese study: Dai kigyō-hatsu benchā kenkyūkai (2008) Dai kigyō-hatsu benchā kenkyūkai teigen - dai kigyō to benchā no Win-Win seichō. (Both English and Japanese versions available from authors – original versions no longer on METI web site.)
[54]  Henderson R (2006) The innovator's dilemma as a problem of organizational competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23: 5–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00175.x
[55]  Kneller R (2003) University-industry cooperation and technology transfer in Japan compared with the US: another reason for Japan's economic malaise? University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 24: 329–449.
[56]  Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Academic Advisory Committee, IP Working Group (2002) Intellectual Property Working Group Report [in Japanese: Kagaku gijutsu gakujutus shingikai, gijutsu kenkyuu kiban bukai, sangakukan renkei suishin i-inkai, chiteki zaisan wa-kingu gu-rupu, Chiteki zaisan wa-kingu gu-rupu houkokushou] (in Japanese)
[57]  Etzkowitz H (2002) MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London: Routledge.
[58]  Eisenberg RS (1996) Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review 82: 1663–727. doi: 10.2307/1073686
[59]  Kneller R (2001) Technology transfer, a review for biomedical researchers. Clinical Cancer Research: 761–778. Available: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/co?ntent/7/4/761.short Accessed 14 Dec. 2013.
[60]  Technology Transfer Tactics (2012) IP policy shifts at major universities get rave reviews from corporate partners. Vol. 6 (No. 2, February) pp.17: & 20–22.
[61]  Nikkei Financial Daily (2007) Ayaui zo. Kagaku gijutsu rikkoku: 4 (Tokkyo shutsugan, kaette chizai ryūshutsu. Mohō bōshi e hikōkai mo) [At Risk! A Science and Technology Powerhouse, 4th in Series (Patent applications become outflow of intellectual property: Non-disclosure to prevent imitation)] 6 March. (in Japanese)

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133