Advertisement

Influence of Government Policy on Technology Acquisition and Utilization

  • Fred Y. Phillips
Chapter

Abstract

Through the 1980s and 1990s, or so it seemed, high technology firms doubted the relevance of the federal policy making process, and spent far less on lobbying than other, more traditional industries. Legislators and regulators, in return, seemed to register high technology as no more than a blip on the radar horizon. Whether that was perception or reality, the Microsoft antitrust decision of 2000 focused Silicon Valley’s eyes on Washington, and lawmakers’ attention on high tech. Non-defense technology was an issue in 2000, for the first time, in a presidential election, and microelectronics executives are becoming proactive, rather than reactive, on legislation, court proceedings, and agency regulation.

Keywords

Technology Transfer World Trade Organization Small Business Innovation Research European Patent Convention Technology Acquisition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Rosenbaum D (1996) Sasha’s Trick. Warner Books New York 204Google Scholar
  2. microelectronics executives are becoming proactive… O’Connor R J (2000) Mr. Tech Goes to Washington. Upside February 113–122Google Scholar
  3. Cost-effective RandD policy requires funding application-driven basic research… This generalization of Vannevar Bush’s post-World War 11 RandD philosophy has been championed by me and more currently by Donald E. Stokes of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School.Google Scholar
  4. Learner D B and F Y Phillips (1993) Method and Progress in Management Science. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 27 (1): 9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Stokes D E (1997) Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institute Washington DC Amazon.com president Jeff Bezos’ widely read letter… See Lessig L (2000) Online Patents: Leave Them Pending. Wall Street Journal (March 23 ) 23;Google Scholar
  6. Martinez M J (2000) Amazon Executive Calls for Stricter Patent Guidelines. The Oregonian (March 10) B7. (For examples of business process patents, see www.public-domain.org/patent/business.) Google Scholar
  7. Ashton W B and R K Sen (1988) Using Patent Information in Technology Business Planning — 1. Research•Technology Management (November-December) 42–46. This article discusses using patent trends to assess a firm’s competitive position.Google Scholar
  8. The differing patent laws in various countries… El-Badry S and H Lopez-Cepero (Eds) (1995) Tricks of the Trade: Intellectual Property in the United States and Japan. IC2 Institute, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  9. PatentCafé is a resource for those interested in patent issues: www.patentcafe.com. Their magazine, Cafezine, is at www.cafezine.com, and they offer a riéw new digital rights management resource, www.lockmydoc.com.Google Scholar
  10. The corresponding articles of the European Patent Convention are 60 (right to a European Patent, see text at the bottom), 62 (right of the inventor to be mentioned), 81(designation of the inventor) as well as Art. 4 of the EPC Protocol on Recognition. They can be found electronically for example under http://www.epo.co.at/legal/epc/e/ar60.html and following http://www.epo.co.at/legal/epc/e/arti4.html… The European Patent Convention makes a reference to the national patent laws of the member states which contain different regulations.“ Source: Thomas Moser INNOVATIONSAGENTUR 1020 Vienna/Austria. See also http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/ipwire. Google Scholar
  11. Venture investors now sometimes advise startups against applying for patents… Roberts B (2000) The Truth About Patents. Internet World (April 15 ) 72–84Google Scholar
  12. Life patents. This paragraph adapted from Mark Rehley’s summary of Marsa L (1996) Patent Wars. OMNI Winter 17(9):36–41 (Life patents can inhibit research…. Statement of Maria C. Freire, Ph.D., Director, National Institutes of Health Office of Technology Transfer before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, January 12, 1999); For both sides of the patented seed issue, see Ehrenfeld D (1997) A Techno-Pox upon the Land. Harpers (October) 13–17; and Shapiro R B (1998) Trade, Feeding the World’s People and Sustainability: A Cause for Concern. Center for the Study of American Business Washington University in St. Louis (April)Google Scholar
  13. The Russian national laboratories. See Hecker S S (2000) Russia’s Nuclear Cities: A Business Opportunity and a National Security Imperative. IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Aust in AprilGoogle Scholar
  14. The U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee lists currently pending bills at http://www.house.gov/science/106th_bills.htm. Google Scholar
  15. industry has given the CRADA program generally high marks… Gibson D V, Jarrett J and G Kozmetsky (1994) Customer Assessment of CRADA Processes, Objectives, and Outcomes at Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. Oak Ridge National Laboratory and IC2 Institute, University of Texas at Austin. See also Beardsley T (1997) The Big Shrink: Federal labs are developing new chipmaking equipment. Who will reap the benefits? Scientific American December 15–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fred Y. Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management in Science and TechnologyOregon Graduate Institute of Science and TechnologyBeavertonUSA

Personalised recommendations