Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byBlaze Gilbert Modified over 9 years ago
1
Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology Nicholas S. Argyres and Julia Porter Liebeskind Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (1998) Presented by Carla Fernández-Corrales, Fall 2014 1
2
Research purpose Why do universities have difficulties commercializing new technologies? Organization boundaries Why is it challenging to manage activities that are different? Motivation: income from technology transfer from universities to industry have not had a significant impact on budgets Social-contractual commitment to create ‘intellectual commons’ vs incentives and contracting policies for biotechnology
3
Social commitments and standards in universities Universities’ mission ‘open science’ Governance arrangements that support this mission: incentives for academic research, self-governance, autonomy, separation of hiring and promotion from budgetary processes and prohibitions to establish private contracts. Enforcement by external parties (e.g., alumni and donors)
4
Biotechnology Highly patentable Pressures to re-contract for property rights because of relative prices and preferences Regulatory changes Who owns rights to IP funded by federal sources?
5
Adaptive efforts: Privatization of intellectual property Privatization (patenting and licensing): concern about erosion of standards of open science. Decision is held by University administrators. Other motive, to facilitate the transfer of knowledge to useful products. Ownership: faculty ownership conflict of interest, standard agency problem Licensing: ‘bench rights’ instead of exclusive licensing. Restrictions to firms’ sponsorships. Narrowly-based rights. Royalties as incentive. Effects of envy and inequities.
6
Adaptive efforts: Commercialization Technology transfer offices: more than patenting, even marketing. University-owned ventures: potential envy problems. University-based research institutes: selective intervention (e.g., contracts with researchers).
7
Reactive adaptation: Controlling faculty behavior Conflicts of interest due to faculty members holding management positions in firms (i.e., outside management). Faculty consulting that diverts attention from teaching and research.
8
Conclusion “Barriers to privatization of a public good can arise from historical social-contractual commitments and supporting internal standards of organizations seeking or possessing property rights” (p. 452)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.