Direct and Spillover Effects of ATP-Funded Photonics Technologies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

secrets, first-mover advantages, customer loyalty, learning curves, and economies of scale);and enhanced position in requisite complementary assets (what they cost and who ownsthem).Because we are interested in tracing the spillover flows into the broader network, wespecifically asked for outputs from the ATP project, such as papers published, conferencepresentations, patent applications, and awards. We also asked about information-sharingmetrics such as resulting alliances with customers, subcontractors, and competitors.We also specifically explored whether the technology in question drove out or lost topromising close alternatives through questions such as: Who are the organizations that youbelieve were closest to introducing similar technologies? How many more months or yearslonger might it have taken them to introduce them? What were the quantities and prices ofdisplaced/cannibalized products/processes?CITATION ANALYSISFinally, we attempted to identify knowledge spillovers to completely unrelated organizationsthrough analyses of external patents and publications citing the patents and publicationsemerging directly from the ATP project. Based on citation counts, we identified andinterviewed by telephone citing individuals at the top five other nonparticipant U.S. firmsthat were apparently gaining the highest value from the ATP-sponsored technology.For patents, we used full-text patent citation indexing available online from the U.S. Patentand Trademark Office to identify all subsequent patents that cited the case project outputs.These patents, in turn, identified firms and individuals who had not collaborated in any waywith the case firm, but had used its results, perhaps in other fields or applications.Similarly, we used a publication citation analysis data service, the Science Citation Indexavailable from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). With ISI’s Research ServicesGroup, we identified all papers in the ISI database authored by investigators associated withthe case study firm and all subsequent publications and authors that cite them. Again fromcitation counts, we identified and interviewed by telephone citing individuals at U.S. firmsthat appeared to be the top receivers of knowledge spillovers.12 DIRECT AND SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF ATP-FUNDED PHOTONICS TECHNOLOGIES
2. DisplaytechINTRODUCTIONIn June 1994, Displaytech, Inc. submitted a proposal entitled FLC/VLSI High-DefinitionImage Generators to the Advanced Technology Program. The proposal won federal fundingof $1.75 million in the ATP General Competition of November 1994, and lasted two years.The 1994 proposal was a revised submission from a well-received, but not awarded,proposal in the 1993 competition.The company, founded in 1985, today designs and sells microdisplays based on its patentedferroelectric liquid crystal (FLC) on silicon (FLCOS) integrated circuit technology. Themicrodisplays have been sold mainly for viewfinders in digital cameras and digitalcamcorders, where they have displaced miniature cathode ray tubes (CRTs). Interestingly,these mass-market applications that dominate Displaytech revenues today were not thoseenvisioned in the 1994 proposal. The microdisplays also have large, near-term marketapplications in digital projectors, cellular telephones, and other mobile devices, as well as inlarge-format computer monitors and televisions. All these areas were foreseen in the 1994proposal, but have yet to develop fully as mass-market outlets for Displaytech. In the longerterm, the capabilities of FLCOS microdisplays show promise in the emerging area ofholographic storage devices. The military has also shown continued interest in and fundingfor applications to displays, as well as applications in fast optical correlators for real-timeimage processing, pattern recognition, and guidance systems. 1Located in Longmont, Colorado, the firm remains the world’s leading supplier of FLCOSmicrodisplays and the first firm to bring FLC devices successfully to mass-market1. Note also that Displaytech also won a DARPA SBIR award in July 1994 to pursue optical architecturesfor head mounted displays, using these same microdisplays. See http://www.darpa.mil/MTO/Displays/HMD/Factsheets/MiniLCD.html. Both awards came shortly after the Clinton administration in April 1994 launchedthe separate, but related, $587 million Flat Panel Display Initiative intended to create a reliable domestic supplybase of displays for the military. These microdisplays are clearly a classic dual-use technology.Displaytech 13
Page 1 and 2: NIST GCR 06-893Direct and Spillover
Page 5 and 6: AbstractTo evaluate the impact of t
Page 7: AcknowledgmentsThis research would
Page 10 and 11: This report presents the findings f
Page 12 and 13: 6. This case study suggests that ke
Page 14 and 15: 3. Comparison of Displaytech and Un
Page 17 and 18: 1. Introduction and BackgroundThe A
Page 19 and 20: the Department of Defense (DOD), Na
Page 21 and 22: Hence, we consider two additional s
Page 23 and 24: area because many photonics technol
Page 25 and 26: FIGURE 2Worldwide Photonics Compone
Page 27: TABLE 3.Matched Case Study Firms by
Page 31 and 32: significant interest worldwide. The
Page 33 and 34: FIGURE 3Cross-Section of a Ferroele
Page 35 and 36: TABLE 4.Crowded Display Competition
Page 37 and 38: FIGURE 4.Competing Electronic Displ
Page 39 and 40: wafer. For FLC-on-silicon microdisp
Page 41 and 42: FIGURE 5.Within-Market Increase in
Page 43 and 44: FIGURE 6.Estimated ATP Employment E
Page 45 and 46: subtracted the opportunity value of
Page 47 and 48: FIGURE 8.Historic Display Price-Qua
Page 49 and 50: TABLE 6.Estimated Consumer Surplus
Page 51 and 52: TABLE 7.Organizations and Groups Mo
Page 53 and 54: FIGURE 12.Patent Citations to Displ
Page 55 and 56: ColorLink’s pi-cell color switche
Page 57 and 58: FIGURE 14.Geographic Distribution o
Page 59 and 60: competitors, were added by patent e
Page 61 and 62: FIGURE 16.Citations to Displaytech
Page 63 and 64: TABLE 9.Top Organizations and Indiv
Page 65 and 66: FIGURE 19.Corporate Citations to Di
Page 67 and 68: TABLE 10.Corporations Citing Post-1
Page 69 and 70: 3. Comparison ofDisplaytech and Uni
Page 71 and 72: acklights of LCDs; and they are bri
Page 73 and 74: which was to give DuPont access to
Page 75 and 76: FIGURE 20.Timing of Displaytech and
Page 77 and 78: Table 11. Organizations and Groups
Page 79 and 80:
FIGURE 23.Patent Citations to Uniax
Page 81 and 82:
In summary, together with Uniax ear
Page 83 and 84:
TABLE 12.OLS Regression Results on
Page 85 and 86:
FIGURE 26.Corporate Citations to Un
Page 87 and 88:
TABLE 13.ContinuedTop 25 Individual
Page 89 and 90:
FIGURE 28.Corporate Citations to Un
Page 91 and 92:
4. Findings and ObservationsFINDING
Page 93 and 94:
microdisplays. We cannot fully dise
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 15.Publication and Citation R
Page 97 and 98:
social ties, distance in the sense
Page 99 and 100:
FIGURE 30.Flowchart of ATP Technolo
Page 101:
government policies, which establis
Page 104 and 105:
• ATP goals inherently involve se
Page 106 and 107:
iv. Suppliers. Three or four on who
Page 108 and 109:
Business Journal of Phoenix, The (2
Page 110 and 111:
Paul, J. (2000), A Brief History of
Page 113:
ABOUT THE AUTHORSTodd A. Watkins is
show all

Direct and Spillover Effects of ATP-Funded Photonics Technologies

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?