On the Need of New Mechanisms for the Protection of Intellectual Property of Research Universities

  • P. Conceição
  • M. V. Heitor
  • Pedro Oliveira
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSPS, volume 19)


This paper discusses the need of reforming the current systems of intellectual property protection, aiming at reflecting the challenges created by the advent of the knowledge-based economy. In a previous paper we argued that the rationale for undertaking intellectual property protection in ‘research universities’ is the strengthening of the institutional integrity of universities (Conceição et al, 1998). In the present paper, we briefly analyse the economic impact of the American and European systems of intellectual property protection, which were designed to meet the needs of the industrial era. In particular, we observe that the nature of today’s inventions is rapidly rendering the current system inadequate and ineffective, in particular in the areas of life sciences and information technologies. Today’s technologies and inventions have created new potential forms of intellectual property that cannot be handled using the current system. We focus our analysis in the university sector, and discuss four main challenges research universities are currently facing.


Intellectual Property Technology Transfer Intellectual Capital European Patent Technology Transfer Office 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Archibugi, D., Pianta, M. (1992), The Technological Specialisation of Advanced Countries,Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Archibugi, D., Pianta, M. (1996), Measuring Technological Change through Patents and Innovation Surveys, Technovation, 16 (9) 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Association of University Technology Managers - AUTM (1997), Licensing Survey, 1991–95: A Five-Year Survey of Technology Licensing (And Related) Performance for U.S. and Canadian Academic and Non-profit institutions, and Patent Management Firms.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Association of University Technology Managers - AUTM (1998), Licensing Survey, 1996 Survey Summary.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, H. (1993), ‘Research Universities and the Social Contract for Science’, in Branscoomb, L. M., Empowering Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conceiçâo, P., Gibson, D., Heitor, M., Shariq, S. (1997), ‘Towards a Research Agenda for Knowledge Policies and Management’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 1 (2), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conceiçâo, P., Heitor, M., Oliveira, P. (1998), ‘University-Based Technology Licensing in the Knowledge Based Economy’, Technovation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conceiçâo, P., Heitor, M., Oliveira, P. (1998), ‘Expectations for the University in the Knowledge Economy’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Correa, C. M. (1994), ‘Trends in Technology Transfer: Implications for Developing Countries’, Science and Public Policy, 21 (6), 369–380.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    David, P. (1993), ‘Knowledge, Property, and the System Dynamics of Technological Change’, in Summers, L. H., Shah, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daguspta, P., David, P. (1994), ‘Towards a New Economics of Science’, Research Policy, 487–521.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrenberg, R. (1997), The American University - National Treasure or Endangered Species, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Commission (1996), Green Book on Innovation, Luxembourg: Official Publication Services of the European Union.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferré, G. (1998), ‘Patents, Innovation and Globalisation’, OCDE Observer, 210, 23–27.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones-Evans, D., Klofsten, M. (1997), Technology, Innovation and Enterprise - The European Context,Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, S.G., Ro, K.K., yu, P.I. (1994), ‘Intellectual Property Protection Policy and technology Capability’, Science and public Policy, 21 (2), 121–130.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kyriakou, D. (1997), “Technology Policy Strategy: Between Research and Development”, The IPTS Report, 12, 12–18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kline, S. J., Rosenberg, N. (1986), ‘An Overview of Innovation’, in Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. (eds.), The Positive sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington D.C.: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leonard-Barton, D., Doyle, J. (1996), Commercializing Technology: Imaginative Understanding of User Needs, in ‘Engines of Innovation’, eds R. S. Rosenbloom and W. J. Spencer, Havard Business School Press, 177–207.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lucas, C. (1996), Crisis in the Academy - Rethinking Higher Education in America, New York, St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitra, J., FORMICA, P. (1997), Innovation and Economic Development, Dublin, Oak Tree Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myers, M., and Rosenbloom, R. (1996), Rethinking the Role of Industrial Research, in ‘Engines of Innovation’, eds R.S. Rosenbloom and W.J. Spencer, Havard Business School Press, 209–228.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mowery, D. C., Rosenberg, N. (1989), Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nelson, R. R., (1986), National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nelson, R. R., Romer, P. (1996), ‘Science, Economic Growth, and Public Policy’, in Smith, B. 1. R., Barfield, C.E.; Technology, RD, and the Economy, Brookings, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OECD (1996), Innovation, Patents and Technological Strategies, Paris.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pavitt, K. (1997), Do Patents Reflect the Useful Research Output of Universities ?, SPRU electronic working papers series.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pavitt, K. (1990), What Makes Basic Research Economically Useful’, Research Policy, 109–119.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Readings, B. (1996), The University in Ruins, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rip, A., Van der Meulen, B. J. R. (1996). ‘The Post-Modern Research System’, Science and Public Policy, 23 (6), 342–352.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roberts, E.B. (1991), Entrepreneurs in High Technology-Lessons from MIT, New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Romer, P. (1990). ‘Endogenous Technological Change’, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), S71 - S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenberg, N., Nelson, R. R. (1996). ‘The Roles of Universities in the Advance of Industrial Technology’, in Rosenbloom, R. S., Spencer, W. J., Engines of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salomon, J. J. (1995), ‘The Uncertain Guest’: Mobilizing Science and Technology for Development’, Science and Public Policy, 22 (1), 9–18.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skoie, H. (1996), ‘Basic Research–A New Funding Climate?’, Science and Public Policy, 23 (2), 66–75.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmitt, A. (1998), “Patent Law in Europe: Can the Hoped for Benefits be Achieved ?”, The IPTS Report, 23, 29–34.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soete, L. (1997), “The Impact of Globalization on European Economic Integration”, The IPTS Report, 15, 21–28.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sullivan, N. F. (1995), Technology Transfer: Making the Most of Your Intellectual Property,Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trott, P., Cordey-Hayes, M., Seaton, R. (1995), ‘Inward Technology Transfer as an Interactive Process’, Technovation, 15 (81), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thurow, L. (1997), ‘Needed: A New System of intellectual Property Rights’, Harvard Business Review, 95–103Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Trune, D., Goslin, L. (1998), ‘University Technology Transfer Programs: A Profit/Loss Analysis’, Technological Forecasting Social Change, 57(3), 197204.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wallmark, J. T. (1997), ‘Inventions and Patents at Universities: the Case of Chalmers University of Technology’, Technovation, 17, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Conceição
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. V. Heitor
    • 2
  • Pedro Oliveira
    • 2
  1. 1.IC InstituteThe University of Texas at AustinUSA
  2. 2.Instituto Superior TécnicoLisboa CodexPortugal

Personalised recommendations