Francesco Lissoni 12 Michele Pezzoni 23 Bianca Potì 4 Sandra Romagnosi 5 1 GREThA Université Bordeaux IV France 2 CRIOS Università L Bocconi Milan Italy ID: 361492
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "University autonomy, IP legislation and ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
University autonomy, IP legislation and academic patenting: Italy, 1996-2006
Francesco Lissoni
1,2
, Michele
Pezzoni
2,3
,
Bianca
Potì
4
,
Sandra
Romagnosi
5
1
GREThA
–
Université
Bordeaux IV - France
2
CRIOS
– Università "L. Bocconi", Milan - Italy
3
Dept of Economics, Università Milano-Bicocca
- Italy
4
CERIS-CNR, Rome - Italy
5
Parco
ScientificoUniversità
"Tor
Vergata
", Rome - Italy
APE-INV Final Conference
Paris, 3-4
/
9 /
2013Slide2
Motivation & Research QuestionsContribute to recent literature on academic patenting in Italy (Europe) by:
What/Any trend in academic patenting?
Weight
of academic patenting on total domestic patenting
Ownership:
Universities’ share of IP over academic inventions (
vs
individuals’,
PROs’
, and business companies’ share)
Exploring links between (1) and two policy changes:
The granting of
autonomy
to universities (incl. financial autonomy), in 1989 (effective kick-off: 1995)
The introduction of
the
professor privilege
, in 2001Slide3
Reasons for focusing on universities’ autonomyPolicy: widespread diffusion of
autonomy-granting/enhancing reforms in all Europe (e.g. “
loi
Pecresse
” in France, 2007); large universities’ quest for more autonomy (e.g. EUA’s report, 2009)
Scholarly research
-
in sociology
: “entrepreneurial university” (Clark, 1993);
in economics
:
autonomy&competition
perfomance
link (Aghion et al., 2009)
Increasing emphasis on “third mission”:
is it materializing? (weight of academic patenting)
Decrease of “block grant” funding
project funding & technology transfer as additional sources of revenues: do universities look at IPRs as a source of revenue?
Changes in academic profession’s status
(from civil servants to university employees): are universities seizing professors’ IPR assets?Slide4
Reasons for focusing on the professor privilegePolicy:
wave of abolitions in German-speaking and Scandinavian countries since 2000
inefficient legal institution, standing in the way of commercialization of academic research results
BUT Italy has introduced it in 2001 incentive-setting justification BUT contradiction with autonomy granting to universities
Scholarly research
– some recent advocacy for the privilege (Kenney, 2009)Slide5
Conclusions /1A. The absolute number of academic patents has increased, but(
i
) their weight on total patenting by domestic inventors has not
the share of university-owned acad. patents has increased
B
.
The
probability to observe an academic patent depends
on
:
- the technology considered
- the science-intensity of research,
- and the characteristics of the local innovation system
After
controlling for these determinants:
(iii) the conditional probability to observe an academic patent has declined over time. Slide6
Conclusions /2C. The rise of university ownership is explained by:
(iv)
the
increasing share of public vs. private
R&D
the
increased autonomy of Italian universities
introduction of explicit IP regulations
D
. The introduction of the professor privilege in
2001
had no impact at all on either
trends
opposed and defeated by universities, thanks to their newly gained autonomySlide7
Methodology for data collection
Name disambiguation
of inventors (EPO patent applications)
free inventor database:
http://www.ape-inv.disco.unimib.it
Professor-inventor name matching: 3 professors’ cohorts inventors 1996-2006 [academic patent patent with at least 1 academic inventors]
Filtering of false matches by: (
i
) automatic criteria (ii) past surveys (iii) ongoing survey
(iv) probability estimates of no-responsesSlide8Slide9Slide10Slide11Slide12
University autonomy in Italy: a quick look* * *
The professor privilege in Italy:
an even quicker lookSlide13
University autonomyL.168/1989: basic principles and creation of ad-hoc Ministry
Several laws/decrees 1990-1996.
Financial autonomy
Key block grant: FFO ("
Fondo
di
Finanziamento
Ordinario
"): starts at 90% of all revenues
automatic decline
Universities become free to collect other revenues
great heterogeneity
No systematic tie with university-industry technology transfer policy
(for a while) GERD grows faster than BERD
(
Epidemic
)
diffusion
of
IP
regulations
(
IP_STATUTE
) and
TTOs
at the
university-level
Little
correlation
between
the
two
diffusion
processesSlide14
Weight of
block
funds
(FFO) and public
funds
for
scientific
reserach
on
Italian
Universities
’ totale
revenues
(
sources
: AQUAMETH, CNSVU)Slide15
Diffusion of
IPR
statutes
and
TechTransfer
Offices
in
Italian
Universities
(
sources
:
own
elaboration
on NETVAL
survey
; CNSVU
survey
)Slide16
The professor privilegeIntroduced in 2001Unsolicited, indeed resisted by universities (unsuccessfully at legal level; possibly successfully at IP regulation level)
Reformed in 2005 (abolished for research co-sponsored by industry)Slide17
Econometric Analysis2-step Heckman Probit
STEP1:
probability of an Italian patent to be academic
, 1996-2006 as a function of:
- time
(year dummies)
- patent characteristics
(IPC class, NPL backward citations, nr inventors)
regional innovation system:
BERD/GDP; universities’ and
PROs’
share of R&D
regional university system
: diffusion of university IP statutes and TTO; weight of FFO over total revenues;
Estimate of academic patenting trend, conditional on changing environmentSlide18
STEP2: probability of an academic patent to be owned by the inventor’s university, 1996-2006 as a function of:- time(year dummies)
- patent characteristics & regional innovation system
university’s characteristics:
- fixed effect (dummies)
- time-variant:
- adoption of IP statute
- TTO opening
- weight of FFO over total revenues
(
FFO_RATIO)
;
Estimate of ownership trend, as a function of increasing autonomy & conditional on changing environment
Similar estimates for individual & business ownershipSlide19
KEY RESULTSSTEP1 (probability of an Italian patent to be academic)
- negative trend after controlling for patent characteristics
(less-than expected composition effect)
- “classic” results for patent characteristics
Positive effect of both
BERD/GDP (demand side)
and
universities’ share of R&D (supply side)
No effect of FFO_RATIOSlide20Slide21Slide22Slide23
KEY RESULTSSTEP2 (probability of university ownership)
- positive trend after all controls (
unexplained trend)
- “classic” results for patent characteristics
Positive effect of
universities’ share of R&D (supply side)
No effect of FFO_RATIO
Positive effect of IP statute adoption
vs
no effect of TTO openingSlide24Slide25Slide26Slide27Slide28Slide29
Further research1) The
value of academic patents, by type of ownership
Lower? Lissoni and Montobbio (
2013)
+ role of universities in weaker regions
Higher
?
Learning
effect
&
increased
autonomy
(
see
Flemish
case)
2)
Changes
of
property
and
markets
for
patents
3)
Lessons
for
evaluation
exercise
(e.g. ANVUR)
Which
patents
do
count
?
Which
patents
shall
we
count
?
University-owned
patents
are a (
non-representative
?) subset
of
all
academic
patents
Counting
university-owned
patents
may
generate perverse
incentives
in
favour
of
patent
filing
/ aggressive
stances
towards
business
sponsors
&
faculty
Use
of
public data
such
as
PatStat / APE-INVSlide30