Not invented here: Knowledge transfer and technology licensing from a German public research organization

Using a new dataset encompassing more than 2,000 inventions made by Max Planck Society researchers from 1980 to 2004, we study the effects of information asymmetry and imperfect knowledge transfer on the licensing and successful commercialization of technologies from public research, distinguishing among types of licensees as well as invention and inventor characteristics. Technologies licensed to foreign firms and spin-offs are less often commercialized, while collaborative inventions are more often commercialized. Senior scientists are more successful in licensing, but their inventions are less often commercialized. Our findings suggest a specific role of spin-offs in transferring technologies invented by senior scientists.

[1]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[2]  Eckart Henning,et al.  Wissenschaftliche Mitglieder der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften im Bild , 1998 .

[3]  J. Hicks,et al.  The economics of science , 1996 .

[4]  Robert A. Lowe,et al.  Overoptimism and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[5]  B. Sianesi,et al.  PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing , 2003 .

[6]  M Lunn,et al.  Applying Cox regression to competing risks. , 1995, Biometrics.

[7]  S. Shane.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[9]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[10]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .

[11]  Guido Buenstorf,et al.  Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society , 2009 .

[12]  A. Agrawal.  Engaging the Inventor: Exploring Licensing Strategies for University Inventions and the Role of Latent Knowledge , 2006 .

[13]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[14]  Christian Zellner,et al.  The Economic Effects of Basic Research: Evidence for Embodied Knowledge Transfer via Scientists' Migration , 2003 .

[15]  R. Lowe,et al.  Who Develops a University Invention? The Impact of Tacit Knowledge and Licensing Policies , 2006 .

[16]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[17]  Peter T. Gianiodis,et al.  Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market , 2005 .

[18]  Petra E. Todd,et al.  Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator , 1998 .

[19]  L. Zucker,et al.  Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions , 2001 .

[21]  R. Lowe,et al.  ASYMMETRY : Theory and Evidence from the University of California , 2002 .

[22]  Phillip H. Phan,et al.  The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer , 2006 .

[23]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[24]  B. Sianesi.  Implementing Propensity Score Matching Estimators with STATA , 2001 .