In the past several years various published papers have questioned whether the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 (The University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act) has in reality been a determining factor in promoting the transfer of technology from US universities, as has been credited to it. This paper responds to that criticism, presenting facts and analysis in support of the contributions universities have made under the auspices of the Act. The authors point out flawed interpretations and misreadings of pertinent data by critics and discuss the circumstances surrounding the inception, passage and implementation of Bayh–Dole.
AUTM (2007), FY 2006 Licensing Activity Survey, Association of University Technology Managers, Deerfield, IL.
2.
Committee on the Judiciary (1979), University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate on S.414, Report No 96–480, 12 December.
3.
De SotoH. (2000), The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, Basic Books, New York.
4.
Economist Technology Quarterly (2002), 14 December edition.
5.
EisenbergR. (1996), ‘Public research and private development: Patents and technology transfer in government sponsored research’, Virginia Law Review, Vol 82, No 8, pp 163–172.
6.
JensenJ.J.WyllerK.LondonE.R.ChatterjeeS.K.MurrayF.E.RohrbaughM.L.StevensA.J. (2008), ‘The contribution of public sector research to the discovery of new drugs’, poster presentation (with updated information) at the AUTM Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, 28 February– 1 March.
7.
MoweryD.C.SampatB.N. (2001), ‘University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925–1980’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 10, No 3, pp 781–814.
8.
MoweryD.C.NelsonR.R.SampatB.N.ZiedonisA.A. (2001), ‘The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 1, pp 99–119.
9.
NSB (2006), Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, Arlington, VA.
10.
NSB (2008), Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, Arlington, VA.
11.
PCAST (2008), University–Private Sector Research Partnerships in the Innovation Ecosystem, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, November.
12.
PressmanL., ed (2000), AUTM FY 1999 Licensing Survey, Association of University Technology Managers, Deerfield, IL.
13.
PressmanL.GutermanS.AbramsI.GeistD.NelsenL. (1995), ‘Pre-production investment and jobs induced by MIT exclusive patent licenses: A preliminary model to measure the economic impact of university licensing’, Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, Vol VII, pp 49–82.
14.
SampatB. (2002), ‘Private parts: Patents and academic research in the twentieth century’, paper prepared for Research Symposium of the Next Generation of Leaders in Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC, 22–23 November.
15.
SampatB.N.MoweryD.C.ZiedonisA.A. (2003), ‘Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh–Dole Act: A re-examination’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol 21, pp 1371–1390.
16.
SoA.D.SampatB.N.RaiA.K.Cook-DeeganR.ReichmanJ.H. (2008), ‘Is Bayh–Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience’, PLoS Biology, Vol 6, No 10.
17.
StevensA.J. (1994), ‘Measuring economic impact’, presentation at AUTM Advanced Licensing Course, Phoenix, AZ, December.
