WHOI-90-52

More documents

Recommendations

Info

property management organiztion (IPMO), the Resech Corpration. Either the IPMO or WHOI then actively pursues the commercial licensing of the patent. During the life of the institution, WHOI has had only a few patents which have not ben assigned to sponsoring government agencies. For the most par, therefore, royalties or other compensation flowing to WHOI for patent licenses has been smalL. Royalties from the licensing of intellectual propert are distrbute internally according to a set formula. This formula vares greatly from one institution to the next; the inventor's share ca range from all of the royalties to 15 percent or less. At WHOI, the inventor recives 50 percent of net royalties from internally pursued patents or 15 percent or the gross plus 50 percent of additional net royalties from patents license through the Resech Corpration. One reason for ths diversity in royalty distrbution policies has to do with the sech for an elusive "balance" between two distict phenomenons. It is believed that awarding full royalties to an inventor may create a disincentive for resechers to work together and share idea and resech results within an institution as they tr to avoid the dilution of royalties. On the other hand, the traditional solution to this problem -- a policy requiring the sharng of royalties -- may create an incentive for resechers to leave an institution and claim full royalties for themselves (Farow, In Prep., 1989). . Universities generay follow the sae policy as WHOI, although there appes to have been a trend in the last decde away from the use of IPMOs and toward the establishment of tehnology licensing and trsfer offices within each university (Johnston and Edwards, 1987). Lage universities such as MI, Staford, Harard, and Columbia all have tehnology licensing offces. Some of these offices limit their activities to the licensing stage, as does WHOI, while others pursue the establishment of spin-off commercial ventures (se below). Intellectual property created by FFRDCs and other laboratories, which are funded predominantly with government support, usually is owned by the government and made available to the public through non-exclusive licenses, unless it is kept seret for national seurity reasons. A relatively new issue concerning tagible resech property (T) has gained increasing attention. TR may include biologica organisms, such as those develope through biotechnologica techniques, or unpatentable resech designs. WHOI has had some limited experience with the licensing of instrment designs for royalties and with the "trding" of bacteria obtaned from the deep se, hydrothermal vent, biologica communities for grats from biotechnology companies. TR is a developing area of intellectua propert and deserves close attention. Cooperative Resech Centers. These centers are importt tehnology transfer mechanism at the national leveL. Beuse there are no national centers established at WHOI, these and some other technology trsfer mechanisms (discusse below) are represented in Figure 2. Cooperative resech centers established at universities include the Engineering Reseach Centers (ERCs) and the Science and Technology Centers (STCs), sta by the National Science 45
Foundation (NSF) in 1985 and 1988, respetively. ERCs are designed to stimulate applied active engineering resech and include financial support, advice, resech direction, and parcipation in resech by commercial sponsors. To date, 18 such centers have been established, including an offshore tehnology center at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M. STCs are not required to include industr sponsorship or resech paricipation, but they are expete to transfer tehnology to the industral setor (Walsh, 1988). Eleven STCs have been established thus far. The Ocea Drillng Program (ODP) is another example of collaborative resech in the field of oceaography (Figure 1). ODP is an international parership of governments that taes worldwide samples and conduct analyses of geologica oc basin cores. Industr collaboration in ODP is minor, and mostly taes the form of financial commitments from industr in the United Kingdom. Similarly, there is minor but ocsionally significant industr sponsorship of resech at academic institutions through the National ~ Grat College Program. There are several examples of technologies which have been commercialize from Sea Grant resech efforts or which have helpe marne-related industres becme more productive. o. P. A. (Con.unlng) . Subcontncl S Orint or Conlricl IIrm ~A, V . ~ ...,.."... Spinoff ,',;; \ ,1I,m' ~ -' Splnoll ,';.; \ . ,firm' ~ -' r-V Figue 1. Type of Technology Trasfer at Woo Hole Ocographic Institution. 46
Page 2: -- !! -== -I" 0- ;; .- -rt õ=.. ai
Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT Thirteen short papers addr
Page 7 and 8: The Status and Promise of Electroni
Page 9 and 10: During the two yeas we have been at
Page 11 and 12: There is currently a major debate r
Page 13 and 14: The Inuence of Japanes Industrial T
Page 15 and 16: profier, an ocea acoustic tomograph
Page 17 and 18: manufacturing would predict between
Page 19 and 20: References Advisory Committee for T
Page 21 and 22: e both winners and losers from the
Page 23 and 24: ecause they are major end users of
Page 25 and 26: A final, but not insignificat, set
Page 27 and 28: Europen Programs in Marne Science a
Page 29 and 30: proposa included a line item speifi
Page 31 and 32: from 12 Europe countres, has been a
Page 33 and 34: ut other industres have been affect
Page 35 and 36: Indee, if barers fall, the effect c
Page 37 and 38: References Andre, M. 1987. Resech a
Page 39 and 40: Peet, G. 1986. Techniques and metho
Page 41 and 42: These statistics becme a reaity dur
Page 43 and 44: should make it easier to coordinate
Page 45 and 46: proposas submitted to SBIR and appr
Page 47 and 48: An Overview of Technology Transfer
Page 49 and 50: follow the fortunes of that industr
Page 51: choosing resech paths. In general,
Page 55 and 56: In the field of ocography, spin-off
Page 57 and 58: Opponunities for technology transfe
Page 59 and 60: "Strategic Allnces" as an approach
Page 61 and 62: summar then, the desired result of
Page 63 and 64: international ecnomic competitivene
Page 65 and 66: NAT LABS , .. R&D .... ... í7 I DE
Page 67 and 68: the radar were "burned in" for a pe
Page 69 and 70: Differences between ~ Defense am ~
Page 71 and 72: chemica industr's 1989 R&D.2S Bang
Page 73 and 74: We are seing a high use of facsimil
Page 75 and 76: pretty nealy global. Except for the
Page 77 and 78: Stadard-C wil disappoint some users
Page 79 and 80: Introduction The Status and Promi o
Page 81 and 82: optional feature of some systems. T
Page 83 and 84: in order to tae full advantage of t
Page 85 and 86: Fishermen and operators of workboat
Page 87 and 88: of the inherent limitations of rada
Page 89 and 90: One example is an America Petroleum
Page 91 and 92: intensification of domestic aquacul
Page 93 and 94: System Output The system output inc
Page 95 and 96: Although the geographica sce of pro
Page 97 and 98: In contrast with the heavily use wa
Page 99 and 100: "works." The tida data (Figure 2, p
Page 101 and 102: ". o ,. - LI u . '- 0 o .c 0: 0: ::
Page 103 and 104:
Concluding Remarks Obviously we are
Page 105 and 106:
All is not new. Commentators someti
Page 107 and 108:
of academic resech is critica, both
Page 109 and 110:
stang point, the model allows the p
Page 111 and 112:
of exchange among the university an
Page 113 and 114:
and progras. Benefits, on the other
Page 115 and 116:
14: 10 Technology Transfer and Inte
Page 117 and 118:
15:30 Where do we stad now? Gary Gl
Page 119 and 120:
Dr. Allyn C. Vine Mr. Malte von Mat
Page 122:
50272.101 PAGE WHOI.90.52 REPORT DO
show all

WHOI-90-52

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?