WHOI-90-52

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Technology Transfer Organizations mOs). ITOs ca tae the form of for-profit or nonprofit corprations, foundations, parerships, or consorta that are established internally or as independent entities. Unlike IPMOs and their internal equivalents, the primar mission of a ITO is the creation of spin-off firms (Figure 2). Other Possible Forms of Technology Transfer $ LIcense e Sublicense Technology Transfer Organization ,-, i' new \ Spino" l-flrm,' -.' Figu 2. Technology Trafer Organzations (TOS). R&D limited Partnership Beuse there usually is no corprate link between a wholly independent s.in-off firm and the institution from which it emerged, spin-off firms represent, in a sense, discrete tehnology transfers. However, there often is a continuing relationship between spin-off firms and the "parent" institution; the firms often find their first customer in the "parent." In many situations, scientists ca retan some connection with a spin-off firm that is commercializing their tehnology development, such as serving on the board of directors or as an advisor, without creating a conflct of interest. 47
In the field of ocography, spin-off firms may be the most prevalent form of TTO. Many small oceaographic equipment firms are spin-offs from ocographic resech institutions (Broadus, Hoagland and Kite-Powell, 1988). At WHOI, the Public Information Offce has estimated the tota annual revenues produce by commercial spin-off firms from WHOI at approximately $50 milion, a figure of the same magnitude as WHOI's annua budget. Whether this phenomenon is widespread in the field of ocography as a whole remains to be determined. A number of universities and other non-profit organizations have established external TTOs as nonprofit Technology Transfer Foundations. Unless profits are plowed back into resech at the parent institution, these foundations may be found ineligible for nonprofit ta exemptions. In many cases, these foundations are established to provide a buffer between a nonprofit resech institution and a commercial venture, thus limiting liabilty and proteting the parent's ta exempt status. Among the oldest of these foundations, the Wiscnsin Alumni Resech Foundation (W ARF) recntly has expanded its role beyond trditional IPMO functions to the creation of a fully taable subsidiar, which engages in a joint venture to design, manufacture, and market heang aids. Profits eaed by the subsidiar are added to W ARF's income; all net income from W ARF is distrbuted back to the university in the same manner as intellectual property royalties are distrbuted in other institutions. Parnerships accunt for approximately 50 percent of industr sponsored resech conducted at universities (TCF, 1984). One form of parnership, the R&D Limited Parnership, has recived speial attention becuse of its limite liabilty for investors. R&D limite parerships are strctured so that one "genera" parer manages, supplies tehnology and other capita, and, most importtly, assumes liabilty for the actions of the parership (Reams, 1986). "Limited" parners supply financial contrbutions or technology in return for an equity share and immediate ta wnte-offs for investing in "resech and experimentation." Universities or nonprofit reseach institutions generaly parcipate as limited parers, primary becuse of concerns that their endowments could be prime tagets for potential commercial product liabilty suits. It is unknown whether ocographic resech institutions have established R&D limited parerships as a meas for tehnology trasfer. As an institutional form, R&D limited parerships appe to hold great promise both for attcting resech funds and for commercialzing resech results. However, considerable effort is involved in the organization of such parerships, and to date, the verdict on their final succss is still out. Conclusions As a first step toward an understading of technology transfer in the marne setor, we have focuse on speific linkages between institutions in the field of ocography (WO!) and industr. Some preliminar conclusions are presente here. The proporton of industral support for basic scientific resech in ocography probably is smaller than the national average for all disciplines. (Estimated direct and indirect industral 48
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 and 52: choosing resech paths. In general,
Page 53: Foundation (NSF) in 1985 and 1988,
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?