U.S. Federal Public Policies for Innovative Start-ups

Akk

Sujets

• Économie
• Economy

Informations

• Publié par: paul.vallen
• Nombre de lectures: 24
• Langue: English

Extrait

The Role of the Legislator in US Innovation Policy: Assets and Weaknesses

•

•

•

•

The Role of Universities

James H. Turner, Jr.

Chief Democratic Counsel

Committee on Science

US House of Representatives

1

•

• •

OVERVIEW: Innovation Universities

My talk is about universities and the public policy changes that have permitted them to be the driving force behind high-technology local economies. It spans three eras: pre-1980; 1980-2000; Changes since 9/11. I will close with some predictions of where the US is heading.

2

• • • • •

Factors Allowing for Innovation Universities

Unlike some countries, major U.S. universities are state, local, or private. Minimum of national policies. College Presidents must be entrepreneurial fundraisers, so they understand the entrepreneurial mindset. They must be political to get their budgets from states. Faculty must be on top of their field and creative to win peer-review grants. The 200 research universities are the country’s most competitive, and students must show creativity as well as intelligence to be admitted.

3

•

•

Two Historical Roots of the Innovation University

1862 Morrill Act. – Guaranteed a research presence in every state. – Through focus on agriculture and mechanical arts, was beginning of university research in life sciences and engineering. World War II. – Government used universities to develop the technologies to win the war. – Broadened universities into leaders in physical sciences and management of large-scale research through FFRDCs.

5

onn Phenomed War II tsolroW      P A                   :  R D&isytviref Unth oGrow

15000

10000

25000

20000

0

30000

6

5000

2000

2003

1953

1980

(Millions of 2000 dollars)

Industry Share Federal Share

• •

• • •

Era I: before 1980

Industry, university, and Federal laboratory researchers did not collaborate. Patents from Federally funded research generally held by government and not used. Universities didn‘t want to do patenting until 1970s. Assumption that antitrust laws prohibited joint research. Industry depended on corporate labs. Companies attracted university graduates but did not fund much university research.

7

•

•

•

Antitrust Policy

National Cooperative Research Act of 1984.

Allows companies to do research together with greatly reduced antitrust penalties.

Extended to joint manufacturing in 1993 and in 2004 to consensus standards development.

8

Antitrust: Changes in companies

• • •

•

No company can keep current without cooperating, including with universities. Companies that had no joint ventures now have tens of thousands. Virtual companies are arriving and universities will need to change to accommodate them. Innovation through small companies.

9

•

• • •

Bayh-Dole: Patent Policy

Bayh-Dole Act of 1980: Inventors employed by small business and universities granted patents subject to paid up government license. Goal: to get intellectual property rights close to inventors. Universities added technology transfer offices. Timing was important. Existing system for patent licensing was not working.

10

• •

•

•

Bayh-Dole Results

Change took time. Increase in patents granted to universities (1982—375; 1990—1184; 1998—3151; 2003—3450: New patents filed—7203). University royalties from licensing (1991--$130 million; 1999--$675 million; 2003—$1.033 billion). Startup companies formed with university patents (1994—175; 1999—275; 2002—370; 2003— 348; Expect rise for 2004).

11