Bayh-Dole and Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: University versus Inventor Ownership*

1. Bayh-Dole and Entrepreneurship Reconsidered: University versus Inventor Ownership* Martin Kenney Dept. of Human and Community Development UC Davis & Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy & Donald Patton Dept. of Human and Community Development UC Davis Presented in North Central Regional Center for Rural Development Webinar October 18, 2011

2. Motivation for Paper • Appreciative modeling exercise suggested inventor ownership should be effective (Kenney and Patton 2009) • Entrepreneurship and technology transfer long time US policy goals

3. Motivation • In response to increasing questioning in the academic literature, a 2010 National Research Council Report stated: “Arguments for the superiority of an inventor driven system of technology transfer are largely conjectural. There is certainly anecdotal evidence of faculty dissatisfaction with the technology licensing office-dominated model as well as evidence of faculty entrepreneurial success independent of such offices, but there is no systematically collected evidence that inventors have knowledge and skills superior to those of technology transfer personnel and their service providers in the various components of IP acquisition, management, and licensing.”

4. Methodology • Find inventor-ownership university • Cambridge, Stanford, Wisconsin – all changed • Only Anglo-Saxon pure inventor ownership univ. -- Waterloo, Canada • Collect all technology-based startups • Internet search, documents, interviews, TLO offices • Extremely strict definition about firms to be included • Decisions made by both authors

5. Hypothesis With various controls, we expect greater entrepreneurship at inventor-ownership university, i.e., Waterloo But conditioned by: 1. University academic ranking 2. Academic field 3. University R&D expenditures 4. Number of professors

6. Population and Data • Waterloo versus University of Wisconsin, Madison; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; UC Davis; UC Santa Barbara • Spin-offs, University/Field ranking, R&D Expenditures, Number of Faculty

7. Overview of the Data Sources: various * Total for BMS, CS&EE, and EPS; all others excluded

8. Cumulative Number of Spin-offs by University, 1957-2009

9. 2010 Shanghai Jiao Tong University Global Academic Rankings, Overall and Selected Technology Categories

10. R&D Expenditures, Total and Per Spin-off by University and Technology, 2005-2008 Data from 2005-2008 26.6 236.9

11. University and Technology Field, Number of Faculty and Spin-offs per Faculty 206 23.9 Spin-offs 2005-2008; number of faculty 2006 except Waterloo which is 2011

12. Spin-offs per Faculty and R&D Expenditures ($ million) Waterloo UCSB Decreasingas one moves towardorigin

13. University Spin-offs, Number and Percentage Licensed by University and Technology Category, 1957-2010

14. Discussion • Inventor ownership proved to be conducive to entrepreneurship • University of Wisconsin had inventor ownership in the past • Surprising differences in levels of entrepreneurship between study fields • EE&CS appear far more efficient at generating startups • EE&CS have no need for TLOs and are hard to police • Some US universities are experimenting, e.g. North Carolina Express Agreement, for inventors wishing to establish their own firm.

15. Discussion (continued) • TLOs would survive and even thrive as SERVICE organizations not bureaucratic control operations • US needs to experiment with alternative models

16. Limitations and Further Research with Database • Only one inventor-ownership university • Role of student entrepreneurship can be explored in our database • Extend to private universities and foreign universities

17. Thank you mfkenney@ucdavis.edu