Abstract
A central argument behind the Bayh-Dole Act presumed that firms had no incentives to invest in downstream R&D aimed at developing university inventions committed to the public domain. The empirical evidence on university patenting and licensing is partly at odds with the premises of this argument. Non-exclusive licensing of university patents has been common and lucrative, and in the area of biomedical technologies university patents and licensing restrictions may be a hindrance to downstream R&D, rather than a stimulus. The paper presents a model of R&D competition based on a university invention where appropriability conditions are defined by the patentability of downstream innovations and imitation opportunities. A comparison of equilibria under “open access” to university inventions and under “university patenting” shows that only under restrictive conditions the latter regime results in increased R&D investment and social welfare. In general, university licensing royalties are therefore a poor gauge of social welfare gains from university patenting.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
