Abstracts
Résumé
Partout dans le monde les organismes publics de recherche (OPR) ont adopté des politiques quasi systématiques de brevetage de leurs inventions. Les conséquences économiques de ce changement ont été largement documentées. Cependant, peu a été écrit en ce qui concerne les stratégies d’exploitation du brevet par les OPR. Nous montrons ici que, si les entreprises ont depuis longtemps compris l’importance d’une utilisation différenciée du brevet en fonction des contextes, c’est loin d’être le cas des OPR, qui restent généralement enfermés dans une vision restrictive du brevet basée sur la délivrance de licences exclusives. Or, une politique d’exclusivité n’est de loin pas l’unique option pour les OPR. Dans certaines situations, que nous définissons, il s’avère plus efficace pour favoriser le transfert de technologie et de connaissances, d’adopter des modèles de licence plus ouverts, basés sur des licences non-exclusives ou sur des stratégies de type « open source ».
Mots-clés :
- brevet d’invention,
- transfert de technologie,
- universités,
- accords de licence d’exploitation,
- open source
Abstract
All over the world, public research organizations (PRO) have adopted a policy of systematic patenting over their research results. Economic consequences of this change have been widely documented. Yet, less has been written on the way PRO use their intellectual property. We show here that, although firms have for long understood the importance of a contextualized use of their patent portfolios, it is not the case of PRO, which remain locked into a restrictive view of patents based on exclusivity. But a policy of exclusive licensing is not the only option for PRO. In some cases, that we attempt to define, it is more efficient in order to foster technology transfer, to adopt more open model of use, based on non-exclusive licenses or on open source strategies.
Keywords:
- Patent,
- technology transfer,
- universities,
- licensing,
- open source
Resumen
En todas partes del mundo los organismos públicos de investigación (OPI) adoptaron políticas casi sistemáticas de patentado de sus invenciones. Las consecuencias económicas de este cambio han sido ampliamente documentadas. Sin embargo, poco ha sido escrito sobre las estrategias de explotación de la patente por las OPI. Demostramos aquí que, si las empresas han entendido desde hace tiempo la importancia de un uso diferenciado de la patente en función del contexto, no es el caso de las OPI, que se quedan generalmente encerradas en una visión restrictiva de la patente basada en la exclusividad de las licencias otorgadas. Ahora bien, una política de exclusividad no es la única opción para las OPI. En algunos casos, que explicamos, resulta más eficiente adoptar modelos de licencias más abiertos, basados en las licencias no exclusivas o en estrategias de tipo “open source” para favorecer la transferencia de tecnología y de conocimiento.
Palabras clave:
- patente,
- transferencia de tecnología,
- universidades,
- acuerdos de licencias de explotación,
- open source
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Arora A. (1997), « Patents, licensing and market structure in the chemical industry », Research Policy 26, 391-403.
- Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. (2002), Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Association of University Technology Managers (2004), Annual Survey.
- Azagra-Caro J., Carayol N., Llerena P. (2006), « Patent production at a European research university: Evidence at the laboratory level », Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 257-268.
- Benkler Y. (2006), Freedom in the Commons: A Political Economy of Information, Yale University Press.
- Boettiger S., Burk D.L. (2004), « Open source patenting », Journal of International Biotechnology Law 1, 221–231.
- Burk D.L. (2002), « Open source genomics », Journal of Science and Technology Law 8, 254.
- Carayol N., Matt M. (2007), « Academic incentives and research organization for patenting at a large French university », Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16 (2), 119-138.
- Cassier M., Sinding C. (2008), « Patenting in the public interest: Administration of insulin patents by the University of Toronto », History and Technology 24 (2), 153-171.
- Cesaroni F., Piccaluga A. (2002), « Patenting Activity of European Universities. Relevant? Growing? Useful? », Presented at the conference Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical frameworks for evidence-Based Policy, 21-23 mars, SPRU, University of Sussex.
- Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J. (2000), « Protecting their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or not) », NBER working paper 7552.
- Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. (1990), « Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation », Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 128-152.
- Cohendet P., Farcot M., Pénin J. (2006), « Entre Incitation et Coordination: Repenser le Rôle Economique du Brevet d’Invention dans une Economie Fondée sur la Connaissance », Management International 10, 65–84.
- Colyvas J., Crow M., Gelijns A., Mazzoleni R., Nelson R., Rosenberg N., Sampat B. (2002), « How do university inventions get into practices? », Management science 48 (1), 61-72.
- Corbel P. (2007), Management stratégique des droits de la propriété intellectuelle, Gualino ed., collection Memento LMD.
- Corbel P. (2003a), « Propriété intellectuelle et externalités de réseau: le cas d’Intel et de la microinformatique », Gestion 2000 20, 103-120.
- Corbel P. (2003b), « Le brevet : un outil de coopération/exclusion », cahiers de recherche du Larequoi 2003/1, 30-44.
- Crespi S. R. (1998), « Patenting for the research scientists: bridging the cultural divide », Trends in Biotechnology16 (11), 450-455.
- David P.A. (2006), « Using IPR to expand the research commons for science: new moves in ‘legal jujitsu’ », in Proceedings of the Conference Intellectual Property Rights for Business and Society, September 14–15, London.
- Edquist C. (1997), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Routledge ed.
- Eisenberg R. (1996), « Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in Government-sponsored research », Virginia Law Review 82, 1663-1727.
- Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000), « The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations », Research Policy 29 (2), 109-123.
- Feldman M., Colaianni A., Liu K. (2005), « commercializing Cohen-Boyer 1980-1997 », DRUID working paper 05-21.
- Feldman M.P., Colaianni A., Liu C. (2007) « Lessons from the Commercialization of the Cohen-Boyer Patents: The Stanford University Licensing Program », In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices (ed. A Krattiger, RT Mahoney, L Nelsen, et al.). MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. Available online at www.ipHandbook.org.
- Foray D. (2009), « Humanitarian licensing : An economist’s perspective », allocution prononcée lors de la 4e conférence EPIP, Bologne, 24-25 septembre 2009.
- Geuna A., Nesta L. (2006), « University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence », Research Policy 35 (6), 790-807.
- Grindley P., Teece D. (1997), « Managing Intellectual Capital: Licensing and Cross-Licensing in semi-conductors and electronics », California Management Review 39, 8-41.
- Heller M., Eisenberg R. (1998), « Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research », Science 280, 698-701.
- Hellmann T. (2007), « The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap », Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63, 624–647.
- Hope J. (2004), Open source biotechnology, Thesis submitted at the Australian National University.
- Hughes S. (2001), « Making Dollars out of DNA. The First Major Patent in Biotechnology and the Commercialization of Molecular Biology, 1974-1980 », Isis 92, 541-75.
- Jaffe A. (2000), « The US Patent System in Transition: Policy Innovation and the Innovation Process », Research Policy 29, 531-557.
- Jensen R., Thursby M. (2001), « Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions », American Economic Review 91, 240-258.
- Kingston W. (2001), « Innovation Needs Patent Reform », Research Policy 30, 403-423.
- Lemley M.A. (2006), « Are universities patent trolls ? », manuscript non publié.
- Levin R.C., Klevorick K., Nelson R.R., Winter S. (1987), « Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development », Brooking Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783-820.
- Lissoni F., Llerena P., McKelvey M., Sanditov B. (2007), « Academic Patenting in Europe : New evidence from the Keins database », Working paper Cespri n°202.
- Mansfield E. (1986), « Patents and innovation: An empirical study », Management Science 32, 173-180.
- Maurer S.M. (2003), « New institutions for doing sciences: from databases to open source biology », in: Proceedings of the European Policy for Intellectual Property conference, November 24–25, Maastricht.
- Mazzoleni R., Nelson R.R. (1998), « The Benefits and Costs of Strong Patent Protection : A Contribution to the Current Debate », Research Policy 27, 273-284.
- Mazzoleni R., Sampat B. N. (2002), « University Patenting : An Assessment of the Causes and Consequences of Recent Changes in Strategies and Practices », Revue d’Economie Industrielle 99, 233-248.
- Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., Ziedonis A.A. (2004), Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Mowery D.C., Ziedonis A.A. (2002), « Academic Patent Quality and Quantity Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States », Research Policy 31, 399-418.
- Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., Ziedonis A.A. (2001), « The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by US Universities: An Assessment of the Effect of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 », Research Policy 30, 99-119.
- Nelson R.R. (2004), « The market economy and the scientific commons », Research Policy 33, 455-471.
- Nelson R.R., Winter S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Pénin J. (2010), « On the consequences of patenting university research: Lessons from a survey of French academic inventors », forthcoming in Industry and Innovation.
- Pénin J., Wack J-P. (2008), « Research Tool Patents and Free-Libre Biotechnology: A Unified Perspective », Research Policy 37 (10), 1909-1921.
- Sampat B. (2006), « Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole », Research Policy 35, 772-789.
- Shapiro C. (2000), « Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting », Innovation Policy and the Economy 1, 119-150.
- Teece D. (1986), « Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy », Research policy 15, 285-305.
- Thursby J., Thursby M. (2007), « Knowledge Creation and Diffusion of Public Science with Intellectual Property Rights », Forthcoming in Intellectual Property Rights and Technical Change, Frontiers in Economics Series 2, Elsevier.
- Verspagen B. (2006), « University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems », Journal of Economic surveys 20 (4), 607-632.