Abstract

Abstract

This long and detailed article speaks to the joint research and development situation in the United States. Because economists and others have long objected, in the name of competition, to joint technical efforts, it is necessary to point out the three classes of intellectual property: private, public and leaky. The latter is unique, and explains the rationale for joint research. Leaky property is property that can be appropriated by a private party, but only for a short time. An inventor of leaky property knows that any creation will not be able to resist encroachment and copying. Therefore, any anticompetitive activity that creates such property is not in the disinterest of the public because the advantage will not be lasting.The three classes of property (private, public, leaky) are now being handled by three groups: the private firm, the university or government laboratory and the industry group. The purpose of the industry group (joint R&D) is to enable one society to compete more successfully with other societies.Four case histories of joint endeavors are presented, the first of which is Japanese, the other three American. The VLSI Technology Research Association was created in 1975 to pursue joint research into very large‐scale integrated circuits. It brought together governmental efforts and support of individual firms. It worked through a joint laboratory, and three group laboratories, all of which were abandoned after four years when the objectives of the effort had been reached (e.g., a 256K DRAM and 1,000 patent applications).The three U.S. case histories are Pump Research and Development Company (PRADCO), Corporation for Open Systems (COS) and the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC). PRADCO was founded in 1984 by five companies, after the five firms all lost a key contract to a Swiss firm. Its role was to survey problems, devise better measurement systems and solve elective R&D problems. Its style is that of a holding company, with each member firm doing research in its own labs, but the work is funded by a technical committee from funds pooled by the firms. It expects to make a profit.COS was created to accelerate implementation of industry standards. The 41 industry firm members started with an $8 million budget in 1984. Most work is done in laboratories of member firms, but COS also runs a lab of its own. It has a hybrid organization structure somewhere between VLSI and PRADCO. It owns the intellectual property created, and licenses it to the members.MCC, at the other extreme, is owned by 21 firms, and runs seven major research projects, each with its own director and its own laboratories. Its champion, William C. Norris of Control Data, positioned it directly against VLSI. Sample research streams are artificial intelligence/knowledge, human interface system and semiconductor packaging/interconnect. Using a member council, a technical advisory board and seven program advisory councils, it is a complex model. Research projects are separate streams, and member firms buy into any or all that they wish; but they get results only from those they help fund. Elaborate procedures keep the knowledge sets confidential in the labs.The authors note that the three U.S. programs came about because independent action had failed in world competition. They have learned that joint programs must be joint, not lead by just one strong member, and the research must be mid‐domain, not overly basic or overly proprietary.In summary, the 1984 National Collaborative Research Act that legalized certain types of joint R&D, (1) adopts a rule of reason criterion to judge potential anticompetitive impacts, (2) eliminates treble damages from situations found to be anticompetitive and (3) provides for openness in the creation process. U.S. programs are usually open‐ended, highly focused, based on extensive rules and funded at lower levels than the Japanese programs. But current requirements that benefits of new technologies ultimately must flow to all competitors, whether members or not and whether domestic or not, will restrict joint research in leaky technologies (Editors' note: see the following abstract for research findings from Europe.)