Historically, academic scientists chose to
disseminate basic research findings and inventions through free and
open channels such as informal sharing, journal publications or
conference presentations. These basic discoveries had little immediate
commercial value for the author to appropriate privately, but could
prove highly useful for other researchers to build upon.
The reward structure of academic science
reinforced this practice, awarding prestige and tenure on the basis of
discoveries published in journals and provided openly to the scientific
community. The patenting of intellectual property generated by
research, while pursued by academics in some fields, was primarily
reserved for discoveries made in the commercial sector, which could be
developed into marketable products and bring monetary rewards to their
inventors. The past two decades have seen an increase in patenting,
most notably in the life sciences, by both industry and academic
scientists in the U.S. Much concern has been raised that this increase
in patenting would create an “anti-commons” effect where basic,
non-commercial academic research would be hindered by the imposition of
long negotiations and expensive licenses to acquire necessary research
inputs from either industry or academia....
Overall, 24% of respondents conducting or managing research or
specializing in intellectual property reported acquiring a patented
technology for use in their esearch since January 2001....For industry
bioscience, non-exclusive licensing was the most common method used in
the acquisition of technologies. In both industry and academia,
exclusive licensing was one of the least used methods for technology
transfer....A total of 16% of all respondents reported that their work
had been affected by difficulties in attempting to obtain patented
technologies. A total of 40% of respondents who had acquired patented
technologies since 2001 reported difficulties in obtaining that
technology....Of the 40% of respondents who reported their work had
been affected, 58% said their work was delayed, 50% reported they had
to change the research, and 28% reported abandoning their research
project. The most common reason respondents reported having to change
or abandon their research project was that the acquisition of the
necessary technologies involved overly complex licensing
negotiations....Overall, 25% of the respondents who disseminated their
technology included a research exemption that allowed the patent holder
to continue to conduct research on or with the licensed technology. 32%
of respondents who licensed the technology included a research
exemption....For those who had not disseminated their technologies, the
most frequently reported reason was that they were developing or
commercializing it themselves (65%). The top reason among academic
respondents why they did not disseminate their technologies was that
they planned to conduct future research with it (40%)....[D]ifficulties
reported by industry respondents in attempting to access patented
technologies outnumbered those of academic respondents by a ratio of
more than 2:1. This may be due to the fact that industry reported
creating and holding more intellectual property than academia, as well
as the fact that industry relies more on licensing, which entails more
and longer negotiations than other more traditional and informal forms
of technology transfer still used within academia.