Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing

By Jerry G. Thursby, S. Kemp. 2002

567 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e92cd58ebee13755b94474cc6e96e41e1a989e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Entpreprenerial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development (2006, background): “These elements form a quantifiable component of university–industry interaction; however there is great variation in commercialization of academic discoveries among universities and the relationship of university inputs to a variety of technology transfer output measures is not strictly deterministi”
From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities (2003, background): “It is a result of having been able to put together the facilities to bring in the outstanding scientists, who bring in those peer-reviewed grants” (Schlesinger, 2001). ( Thursby and Kemp, 2002 ).”
Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison (2011, unknown): “This result proides some support Thursby and Kemp’s (2002) finding that TLOs t smaller universities seemed to be more efficient.”
Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study (2016, background): “Many scientific discoveries, in particular within the life sciences, can be successfully licensed directly to industry (Thursby and Kemp 2002).”
If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world (2007, background): “Additional variables that are likely to affect the probability of patenting include the gender (Stephan et al., 2007; Thursby and Thursby, 2005a) and the experience of the institution in technology transfer (Owen-Smith and Powell, 2002; Jensen et al., 2003; Thursby and Kemp, 2002 ).”
Commercializing Academic Research: Resource Effects on Performance of University Technology Transfer (2003, background): “Thursby and Kemp (1999) in their extensive study of university technology transfer, for example, reported that the biological sciences and engineering are the most important source of university licenses.”
University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? (2007, background): “companies (Friedman and Silberman, 2003; Thursby and Kemp, 2002; Zucker et al,”
WHO'S PATENTING IN THE UNIVERSITY? EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS (2007, background): “The work by Thursby and Kemp (2002) concerning the role that TTO play in determining the number of disclosures at a university is consistent with the observation that although academic scientists do not need to be taught how to publish they do need to be educated concerning the patent process.10…”
Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities (2001, background): “The MEDSCHL result is expected given the generally greater marketability of medical inventions (see, for example, Thursby and Kemp (2000)); however, this does not carry over to royalties as MEDSCHL is not significant in that regression.”
Skilled Immigration and Innovation: Evidence from Enrolment Fluctuations in us Doctoral Programmes (2012, unknown): “…among American secondary school students.6 Third, our study contributes to an understanding of university admissions and the production of knowledge at US universities ( Jaffe and Trajtenberg, 2002; Thursby and Kemp, 2002; Thursby and Thursby, 2002; Mowery et al., 2004; Azoulay et al., 2005).”