New Rules for German Professors

Kilger, Christian; Bartenbach, Kurt

doi:10.1126/science.1075269

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11. The new policy aims to ensure that ''more inventions are brought to patent offices before they get published'' and ''is supposed to lead to active licensing transfer from university to industry and to more companies being founded on the basis of intellectual property conceived within the university environment'' (Kilger and Bartenbach, 2002). 12.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University?Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?

Mowery

Sampat

2004

The Journal of Technology Transfer

389

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Recent initiatives by a number of OECD governments suggest considerable interest in emulating the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, a piece of legislation that is widely credited with stimulating significant growth in universityindustry technology transfer and research collaboration in the US. We examine the effects of Bayh-Dole on universityindustry collaboration and technology transfer in the US, emphasizing the lengthy history of both activities prior to 1980 and noting the extent to which these activities are rooted in the incentives created by the unusual scale and structure (by comparison with Western Europe or Japan) of the US higher education system. Efforts at ''emulation'' of the Bayh-Dole policy elsewhere in the OECD are likely to have modest success at best without greater attention to the underlying structural differences among the higher education systems of these nations.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University?Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?

Mowery

Sampat

2004

The Journal of Technology Transfer

389

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike most of Germany's public research organizations (PROs), 3 German universities had little experience undertaking technology transfer activities, and only a few universities maintained professionally managed technology transfer offices (TTOs) (Schmoch et al, 2000). The government established regional patent valorization agencies (PVAs) that were supported with a budget of 46.2 million EURO (Kilger and Bartenbach, 2002). Universities were free to choose whether to use the PVAs' services or not.…”

Section: Background and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Creates Markets: The influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship

Czarnitzki

Doherr

Hussinger

et al. 2016

European Economic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Germany, the 'professor's privilege' ('Hochschullehrer-Privileg') was in place until 2002. Based on Article 5 of the German constitution, which focuses on the freedom of science and research, the professor's privilege entitled academics in Germany to use their scientific results for private commercialization even if the underlying research was carried out at and financed by the university or other public sources (Kilger and Bartenbach, 2002). In fact, the professors' right to commercialize inventions privately before that year is reflected by a low number of German university patents (Czarnitzki et al, 2007;Czarnitzki et al, 2008).…”

Section: Literature Background and Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informal University Technology Transfer: A Comparison between the United States and Germany

Grimpe

Fier

2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp09033.pdf Non-technical summaryKnowledge produced in the public sector has frequently been shown to be an important ingredient of economic growth and technological change. Most of the existing research puts emphasis on formal university technology transfer mechanisms (i.e. those that embody or directly lead to a legal instrument like a patent, license or royalty agreement). Few authors have investigated informal university technology transfer mechanisms. Informal technology transfer focuses primarily on interactions of the agents involved (i.e. on university scientists and industry personnel) where property rights are of secondary importance. While formal technology transfer mechanisms frequently aim at transferring a research result like a patent or a license to use a technology, informal mechanisms do not, and there is usually no expectation that they will. In this sense, formal technology transfer is a mechanism to allocate property rights whereas informal technology transfer is much more about communication among individuals. Examples could be contacts between academics and industry personnel at conferences, joint publications, academic consulting, or other informal contacts, talks and meetings.However, existing research shows that many university scientists in the United States do not disclose their inventions to their university although prescribed by law. University administrators will therefore have an interest to better understand the determinants of informal technology transfer given their objective to create revenues for the university. In the United States, the commercialization of technology developed by university scientists had been spurred by the enactment of the BayhDole Act in 1980. In Germany, an equivalent to the Bayh-Dole Act only came into force 20 years later in 2002. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to shed light on the effects that institutional differences might have on the choice of scientists to transfer technology informally. We present comparative findings for Germany based on a recent paper by which has focused on the United States. Moreover, we extend their previous findings by focusing on two neglected factors more explicitly: the scientist's individual productivity as well as the research environment in which the informal technology transfer takes place.Based on a comprehensive sample of more than 800 German university scientists, our U....

show abstract

New Rules for German Professors

Cited by 33 publications

References 0 publications

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University?Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University?Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?

Knowledge Creates Markets: The influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship

Informal University Technology Transfer: A Comparison between the United States and Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About