Talk:University technology transfer offices
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ansh.b.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Some other stuff
[edit]- The Kauffman Foundation strongly supports entrepreneurship and has studied/tracked the field of tech transfer. Lots of good stuff on their website that you could use for sourcing, including this overview report.
- Interestingly around 2009 Kauffman began advocating for "inventor free-agency" - namely that bayh-dole should be changed to allow inventors to take their inventions anywhere. They viewed the system established by bayh-dole as monopolistic and inefficient. See Stangler, Carl Schramm, Robert Litan And Dane (6 November 2009). "New Business, Not Small Business, Is What Creates Jobs". Wall Street Journal.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and especially Litan, Robert E.; Mitchell, Lesa (January–February 2010). "The HBR List: Breakthrough Ideas for 2010: 6: A Faster Path from Lab to Market". Harvard Business Review.
- The book -- Washburn, Jennifer (2006). University, Inc. : the corporate corruption of American higher education. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465090525. -- is a pretty good summary of one stream of criticism of tech transfer. Good review of that book here: Rutt, J. Steven (November–December 2005). "Book Review: Bayh-Dole & Nanotechnology: corporate corruption of U.S. higher education". Nanotechnology Law & Business. 2 (4).
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (link)
- Another stream of criticism is that by over-enthusiastically patenting inventions, tech transfer offices create patent thickets and a tragedy of the anticommons. Rebecca Eisenberg and Michael Heller have been the main proponents of that (discussed in the "tragedy" WP article)
- here is another critical article, long, with lots of reporting: <ref>Leaf, Clifton (September 19, 2005). "The Law of Unintended Consequences". Fortune.
- Great piece from Stanford's history department about why Stanford is so successful, here.
you may find these helpful.. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)