LEADER 04582nam 2200697 a 450 001 9910817412503321 005 20240418073136.0 010 $a0-309-20995-1 010 $a1-283-01912-4 010 $a9786613019127 010 $a0-309-16112-6 035 $a(CKB)2550000000031952 035 $a(EBL)3564208 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000509210 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11353486 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000509210 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10579251 035 $a(PQKB)11249616 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3564208 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10454974 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL301912 035 $a(OCoLC)932320506 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3564208 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000000031952 100 $a20110413d2011 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aManaging university intellectual property in the public interest /$fNational Research Council of the National Academies ; Stephen A. Merrill and Anne-Marie Mazza, editors 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aWashington, D.C. $cNational Academies Press$d2011 215 $a1 online resource (118 p.) 300 $a"Committee on Management of University Intellectual Property: Lessons from a Generation of Experience, Research, and Dialogue; Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs." 311 $a0-309-16111-8 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $a""Front Matter""; ""Preface""; ""Contents""; ""Summary""; ""1 The Growth of University Technology Transfer""; ""2 Influence of Technology Transfer on University Research Norms and Practices""; ""3 Effectiveness and Accountability of University Technology Transfer Activities""; ""4 Findings and Recommendations""; ""Appendix A: Conference Agenda ""; ""Appendix B: Conference Presenters ""; ""Appendix C: Biographical Information of Committee and Staff"" 330 $aThirty years ago federal policy underwent a major change through the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which fostered greater uniformity in the way research agencies treat inventions arising from the work they sponsor. Before the Act, if government agencies funded university research, the funding agency retained ownership of the knowledge and technologies that resulted. However, very little federally funded research was actually commercialized. As a result of the Act's passage, patenting and licensing activity from such research has accelerated. Although the system created by the Act has remained stable, it has generated debate about whether it might impede other forms of knowledge transfer. Concerns have also arisen that universities might prioritize commercialization at the expense of their traditional mission to pursue fundamental knowledge--for example, by steering research away from curiosity-driven topics toward applications that could yield financial returns. To address these concerns, the National Research Council convened a committee of experts from universities, industry, foundations, and similar organizations, as well as scholars of the subject, to review experience and evidence of the technology transfer system's effects and to recommend improvements. The present volume summarizes the committee's principal findings and recommendations. 606 $aTechnology transfer$zUnited States 606 $aIntellectual property$zUnited States 606 $aIntellectual property infringement$zUnited States 606 $aUniversities and colleges$zUnited States$xAdministration 615 0$aTechnology transfer 615 0$aIntellectual property 615 0$aIntellectual property infringement 615 0$aUniversities and colleges$xAdministration. 676 $a346.73048 701 $aMerrill$b Stephen A$01593562 701 $aMazza$b Anne-Marie$01598743 712 02$aNational Research Council (U.S.).$bCommittee on Management of University Intellectual Property: Lessons from a Generation of Experience, Research, and Dialogue. 712 02$aNational Research Council (U.S.).$bBoard on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy. 712 02$aNational Research Council (U.S.).$bCommittee on Science, Technology, and Law. 712 02$aNational Research Council (U.S.).$bPolicy and Global Affairs. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910817412503321 996 $aManaging university intellectual property in the public interest$93921140 997 $aUNINA