AUTM Journal Volume XI 1999


Download PDF - 2.5 MB

Table of Contents

  • Opening Remarks to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
    By Teri F. Willey
  • Plant Intellectual Property Transfer Mechanisms at Universities
    By Steven C. Price and Bryan Z. Renk
  • Federally Registered Trademarks Add Value to Technology
    By Ellen P. Winner
  • Personal Impressions of China
    By Terry A. Young
  • Where do the Leads for Licenses Come From? Source Data from Six Institutions
    By Christina Jansen and Harrison F. Dillon
  • A Suggested Method for Assessing the Economic Impacts of University R&D: Including Identifying Roles for Technology Transfer Officers
    By Albert N. Link

Editor's Preface
It is my hope that the readers of this issue of the Journal will notice, when glancing at the Table of Contents or turning directly to a paper, that there is a difference in this issue of the Journal. The difference is that two contributions have more of a personal tone to them than articles of the past.

Teri Willey's remarks to a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation appear first. Succinct, clear, and convincing, this record of Teri's oral remarks will serve as an encapsulation of the impact of federal R&D on university technology transfer and small business. If each member substitutes his or her own university's facts for those of ARCH Development Corporation, he or she could use these remarks to enlighten his or her own community whether academic, business, or governmental.

The other novel contribution by a member is Terry Young's personal impressions of his visit to China as part of a U.S. Delegation, which undertook to share information on technology transfer with the Chinese. Other members of the Delegation might well have different or even opposite impressions. Nevertheless, the Journal Board believed Terry's impressions would be of interest and value to members, many of whom will have experiences in China in the future.

Two other papers carry out one of AUTM's foremost missions: to teach members and keep them informed. Steven Price and Bryan Renk present an enlightening comparison and analysis of the two systems of technology transfer that often operate side by side—one for plant varieties and one for "everything else." Even members who do not work with agriculture research and products will find this article interesting and full of information that all members should know. Another very instructive paper, this one by Ellen Winner, makes a convincing case for registration of trademarks as part of the overall licensing strategy for increasing value in technology. Forward-looking and engaging, Ellen's paper is a must read for every member.

The last two articles in this issue are, in my view, thought- provoking for AUTM members. Where do you get your leads to licenses? What is the economic impact of your university's R&D? I wonder if there are two questions that occupy technology managers more.

Christina Jansen and Harrison Dillon have provided an answer to the first question by undertaking and reporting a study of six institutions. Members will be interested in finding out whether their own hypotheses are proven out by the data that were derived from this insightful and original investigation.

And finally, UNC Professor Albert Link has favored AUTM with his scholarly and provocative paper on the technology transfer officer's role in assessing the economic impacts of university R&D. It provides an answer to that second question that technology managers ponder. One of the pluses of Dr. Link's scholarly article was that it generated significant discussion among Journal editors and the Editorial Board. I believe this type of discussion enhances the content quality of the Journal and the ultimate value of the Journal to the members. So I challenge you to read Prof. Link's paper and to share your thoughts with us. A dialogue, however extended in time, would benefit all AUTM members. This invitation to share your thoughts extends to comments on any of the papers included in this issue of the Journal. What do you think? We would like to know.

My thanks go to each of these authors. Only members who have researched, written, edited, and re-edited an article after receiving comments from the Editorial Board will understand the work and persistence involved. Each is commended for being willing to provide important information for us in a form that is easy to assimilate.

Managing Editor, Diane Hoffman, and I are constantly seeking original manuscripts or ideas for manuscripts. We invite you to contact Diane for content and review procedures.

Katherine L. Chapman, Editor