Abstract
This paper discusses the question: should universities patent their inventions or should not? The question is analyzed through the lens of the logic of the scientific production. It is also considered the critiques pointed in the literature and presented and discussed the results of an original survey on technology transfer from universities and public labs to firms in Brazil. It is discussed the existence of a trade-off between the free access to new scientific knowledge and the agility of university’s inventions commercialization. It is argued that the question should be “how” should universities patent their inventions instead of “should or not”. From the society welfare point-of-view, universities should try licensing without exclusivity in order to assure that the invention reach the highest number of firms interested in the development of the invention. It would be desirable to concede research excuses for those interested in the use of university patents for scientific research purposes.References
ALBUQUERQUE, E. Patentes de invenção de residentes no Brasil (1980-1995): uma investigação sobre a contribuição dos direitos de propriedade intelectual para a construção de um sistema nacional de inovação. Tese (Doutorado em Economia) – Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 1998.
ARROW, K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: NELSON, R.R. (Ed.). The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1962.
ASHEIM, B.; GERTLER, M. The geography of innovation. Regional innovation systems. In: FARGERBERG, J.; MOWERY, D.; NELSON, R. (Eds.)s The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, 2005.
BUSH, V. Science: the endless frontier. A report to the president by Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of scientific research and development. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945.
CALLON, M. Is Science a public good? Science, Technology, & Human Values, v. 19, n. 4, p. 395-424. Aut. 1994.
CALLON, M. Four models for the dynamics of Science. In: JASANOFF, S.; MARKLE, G.; PETERSEN, J.; PINCH, T. (Eds.). Handbook of science and technology studies. SAGE Publications, 1995, p. 29-63.
COHEN, W.; NELSON, R.; WALSH, J. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, v. 48, n. 1, p. 1-23, Jan. 2002.
DAGNINO, R.; SILVA, R. B. As patentes das universidades públicas. Boletim de Economia & Tecnologia, UFPR, ano 05, v. 18, 2009.
DASGUPTA, P.; DAVID, P. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, v. 23, n. 5, p. 487-521, Sept. 1994.
DAVID, P. The economic logic of “open science” and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information: a primer. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research-SIEPR, 2003 (Discussion paper, 02-30).
FREEMAN, C.; SOETE, L. The economics of industrial innovation. 3. ed. London: Pinter, 1997.
GREGG, A. University patents. Science, New Series, v. 77, p. 257-259, Mar. 1933. (Traduzido por Boletim Inovação Unicamp). Disponível em: http://www.inovacao.unicamp.br/report/UniversityPatents-TR.pdf
JENSEN, R.; THURSBY, M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, v. 91, n. 1, p. 240-259, Mar. 2001.
KLEVORICK, A.; LEVIN, R.; NELSON, R.; WINTER, S. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, v.24, n. 2, p. 185-205, Mar. 1995.
KLINE, S.; ROSENBERG, N. An overview of innovation. In: LANDAU, R.; ROSENBERG, N. (Eds.). The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy Press, 1986, p. 275-305.
LANDI, F. R. (Coord.). Indicadores de ciência, tecnologia e inovação em São Paulo – 2004. São Paulo: Fapesp, 2005.
LEVIN, R.; KLEVORICK, A.; NELSON, R.; WINTER, S. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, n. 3, Special Issue on Microeconomics, p. 783-831, 1987.
MACHLUP, F. An economic review of the patent system. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1958. (Study of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, study, 15).
MAZZOLENI, R. University patents, R&D competition, and social welfare. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, v. 14, n. 6, p. 499-515, 2005.
MAZZOLENI, R.; NELSON, R. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, v. 27, n. 3, p. 273-284, July 1998.
MERTON, R. K. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociology Review, v. 22, n. 6, p. 635-659, 1957.
MERTON, R. K. Imperativos institucionais da ciência. In: DEUS, J. D. (Org.). A crítica da ciência: sociologia e ideologia da ciência. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1974, p. 37-52.
MOWERY, D.; SAMPAT, B.; ZIEDONIS, A. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole act, 1981-1992. Management Science, v. 48, n. 1, p. 73-89, Jan. 2002.
MOWERY, D.; NELSON, R.; SAMPAT, B.; ZIEDONIS, A. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, v. 30, n. 1, p. 99-119, Jan. 2001.
MOWERY, D.; NELSON, R.; SAMPAT, B.; ZIEDONIS, A. Ivory Tower and industrial innovation: university-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Stanford, CA.: Stanford Business Books, 2004.
NARIN, F.; HAMILTON, K. S.; OLIVASTRO, D. The increasing linkage between US. technology and public science. Research Policy, v. 26, n. 3, p. 317-330, Oct. 1997.
NELSON, R. R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, v. 67, n. 3, p. 297-306, 1959.
NELSON, R. R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, v. 33, n. 3, p. 455-471, Apr. 2004.
NELSON, R. R. Reflections on “The Simple Economics of Basic Research”: looking back and looking forwards. Pisa, Italy: Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies/Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), 2006 (LEM papers series, 2006/20).
NELSON, R. R. What is “commercial” and what is “public” about technology, and what should be? In: ROSENBERG, N.; LANDAU, R.; MOWERY, D. C. Technology and the wealth of Nations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1992, p. 57-71.
OBSERVATOIRE DES SCIENCES ET DES TECHNIQUES (OST). Science & technologie indicateurs: 2000. Paris: Economica, 2001.
PAVITT, K. What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, v. 20, n. 2, p. 109-119, Apr. 1991.
PÓVOA, L. M. C. Patentes de universidades e instituições públicas de pesquisa e a transferência de tecnologia para empresas no Brasil. 153 f. Tese (Doutorado em Economia) – Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 2008.
RAFFERTY, M. The Bayh-Dole Act and university research and development. Research Policy, v. 37, n. 1, p. 29-40, Feb. 2008.
ROSENBERG, N. Inside the black box: technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1982.
SAMPAT, B. Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after the Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, v. 35, n. 6, p. 772-789, Jul.2006.
STEPHAN, P. The economics of science. The Journal of Economic Literature, v. 34, n. 3, p, 1.199-1.235, Sep. 1996.
TOOLE, A. The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research-SIEPR, 2000 (Discussion paper, 00-07).
The content of the articles and reviews published in RBI are of absolute and exclusive responsibility of their authors.
Downloads
