Academic Inventiveness and

Entrepreneurship: On the Importance

of Start-up Companies in
Commercializing Academic Patents

ABSTRACT. This article presents research that places the

academic start-up phenomenon in the broader technology
transfer context. Drawing on data on Finnish academic
inventions, the paper illustrates that a considerable share of
university-related patents are utilized in start up companies but
that still most academic patents are utilized in established and
predominantly large rms. Dierences in utilization patterns
are explored for dierent elds of science and technology.
Keywords: academic entrepreneurship, University spin-out
companies, university patents, academic inventions, Finnish
patents
JEL Classications: O31, O32

1. Introduction
Nowadays universities are widely perceived as
more than institutions of higher education and
research. As many observers pointed out, universities are increasingly viewed as proactive contributors to technological development and
economic growth.1 The notions of the entrepreneurial university and the academic entrepreneur
have become guiding images for decision-makers
in science and technology policy and higher education. In many countries, governments pursue
policies geared towards increasing entrepreneurial
activities and supporting the commercial uptake of
university-generated technology (see e.g. Tomes,
2003). Often, university spin-os and academic
start-up companies are viewed as the most appro1
Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U. Leuven, Dekenstraat 2,
B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
E-mail: m.s.meyer@sussex.ac.uk
2
SPRU, University of Sussex, Freeman Centre, Brighton,
East Sussex, BN1 9QE UK
3
Helsinki University of Technology,
Institute of Strategy and International Business,
PL 9500, FIN-02015 TKK, Finland

Martin Meyer1,2,3

priate vehicle for utilizing research results even

though doubts are now being voiced.2 This paper
explores the importance of academic start-ups and
university spin-os by following up where inventions made by academic inventors are utilized.
The study draws on an analysis of patents
granted to university researchers in a small European economy. The ndings suggest that start-ups
and spin-os are important in transferring technology invented by academics but do not play a
dominant role in capitalizing science. Large rms
and established small and medium-sized enterprises account for a much greater share of utilized
academic patents. The study also explores the extent to which the utilization of academic inventions is associated with certain scientic and
technological elds rather than others.

2. Data and methodology

This paper presents results of a survey of academic
inventors in Finland. The survey is based on patent data we retrieved applying a novel methodological approach in a previous research project (see
Meyer et al., 2003a, b; Meyer, 2003b for details).
We identied academic patents through the aliation of their inventors with a university rather
than university ownership of patents. An academic
invention was dened as a patent that lists as an
inventor at least one individual who was employed
at a university in Finland. The university can but
does not need to be the owner of the patent.3
Using the aforementioned denition, we identied
a total of 530 Finnish academic inventions that
were patented at the US Patent and Trademark
Oce over the past 15 years.

Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 501510, 2006.

2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC Manufactured in The Netherlands.

502
For each of the patents, contact details of their
academic inventors were retrieved. At times, we
identied more than one academic inventor. All in
all, 610 personalized questionnaires were sent out.
A total of 243, i.e. two out of ve, questionnaires
were returned.
The paper focuses on subsets of these responses
as dened by the utilization context of the patented
inventions. Distinctions can be made by whether an
invention is utilized in a commercial or non-commercial sphere. In this paper, we focus on inventions that found commercial application and then
examine the data further by science and technology
elds, origin of the invention and type of user.
The survey was individualized and web-based.
Inventors were sent an individual email message
explaining the purpose of the study. The email
message contained links to the questionnaires.
Inventors were asked to complete a questionnaire
for each of their patents. To obtain a reasonable
response rate, the questionnaire was kept short.
First, inventors had to indicate the main area of
their scientic activities. Then they needed to indicate the location of their employment and their
position at the time of the invention. Inventors were
also asked to rate how important their own contribution was to the invention. Sometimes a patent
was invented by several academics, all of whom
were included in our database. This situation can
lead to dierent evaluations of the same patent. We
needed a criterion that enabled us to decide which
answers were to be included. The question allowed
us to identify the most important academic
contributor, based on subjective self-judgment.
Another question inquired about where their coinventors were employed at the time of the invention. These questions made it possible to distinguish
three groups of university-related patents.
Using this more inclusive indicator allows us to
trace academic contributions to technological
development in a broader way. This leaves us with
three main categories of university-related patents:

(Purely) Academic patents: All the inventors

were working in a university at the time of
the invention.
Collaborative patents: One or more inventors
were working in a university while the others
were employed in industry at the time of the
invention.

Meyer

Industrial patents: The inventors were working in the university at some point in time but
were employed/contracted by industry at the
time of the invention.

For each of these three categories, we followed

up the points below:

Was the inventors research directly related to

the patented invention? If so, was this research supported nancially by any private or
public organization? Which sources provided
funding?
Did the inventors or their organizations receive any support for patenting their inventions? If this was the case, the funding
sources needed to be specied.
Was any support given for further utilization?
If so, which organizations were among the
nancers?
Where were the patents utilized? The respondents were asked to indicate the place of utilization and given the following categories:
Start-up, established SME, large rm, university, hospital, public research center. They
were also given the option to indicate any
other or no utilization of the research.
Was the patent licensed?

An overall summary of the inventor survey is

available in Meyer et al. (2003b).4 This study
focuses entirely on how the locality where the
patented invention is used relates to the origin of
the invention in terms of science and technology
elds as well as the channel of commercialization.
3. Limitations
Using patents as an indicator of technological
useful activity has many advantages as well as
drawbacks. For instance, Van Looy et al. (2003,
p. 54) point to the advantages of patents which
seem relevant, not only because they reect
technical inventions (novelty) with potential market value, but also because of the widespread
availability of databases covering all technological
elds. Yet there are also considerable drawbacks
of patents as an indicator. They are discussed in
detail elsewhere (see e.g. Debackere, 2000). With

503

Academic Inventiveness and Entrepreneurship

respect to this study, one important limitation is

the restriction on technologies that have high
propensities to patent. For instance, developments
in the software eld cannot be adequately captured
through tracing patents. Also, there is some bias
towards large rms in patent data as they tend to
patent more than small and medium-sized enterprises. However, in order to qualify for certain
support measures, such as pre-seed funds, strong
intellectual property protection, often in form of
patents, is required. This should give academic
inventor-entrepreneurs at least some incentive to
seek patent protection, also since some funds are
made available to support them.
Another, not patent but context-related limitation is the level of support for entrepreneurial
activity during the time period we covered in this
study. One needs to be aware that the data covers
a period in which entrepreneurship support was
still moderate.5 The specics of the Finnish innovation system need to be taken into account when
interpreting the science and technology relation.
With respect to the survey responses, one also
needs to bear in mind that the response rates did
vary between universities.
The notions of academic entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial intent are used in a relatively narrow understanding. A distinction is made between
academic entrepreneurs whose inventions are utilized in start-up companies and entrepreneurial

Utilization
Context

academics who act in an innovative manner within

the university and research environments (see e.g.
Clark, 1998; Meyer, 2003b).
In the literature one can also nd distinctions
between university spin-out or spin-o companies
and academic start-ups.6 The former term refers to
university-sponsored new businesses, possibly with
the university holding an equity share while the
latter refers to independent foundations of companies by (former) employees of universities. In the
context of this (Finnish) study, a distinction between university spin-os and academic start-ups
seems less sensible because of the comparatively
limited level of university involvement in promoting new research-based ventures.

4. Findings
Academic patents can be characterized in dierent
ways, according to their context of utilization, the
type and aliation of collaborators or by scientic
and technological eld (see the categories in
Figure 1). This section will rst present the survey
results form a utilization perspective by examining
the locality of where patented inventions are used.
Then the study explores whether the invention
context plays a role, i.e. whether the aliation of
the (co-)inventors of academic patents vary from
technology to technology or from science eld to

Noncommercial
application
Start-up

Commercial
application

SME
Large firm

Invention
Context
Academic
Patents
S&T
Context

Purely Academic
Collaborative
with industry
while woking
in industry
Life Sciences
Natural Sciences
Engineering &
Materials

University
Context
Figure 1.

Categories of academic patents in relation to their contexts.

504

Meyer

science eld. Identifying dierences between science elds, this study will explore them in more
detail by investigating more specic patterns for
several subsets of data. These subsets are dened
by their utilization context, whether they are used
by a rm, be it a start-up, an SME, or a large
corporation. Dierences with respect to the aliation of the inventors are also explored so one can
distinguish between inventions of purely academic
origin, collaborations of academics with industrialists and academic inventions made while working in industry.
Large rms as main users of academic patents
Most patented inventions of Finnish academic
researchers appear to be utilized in large and
established small and medium-sized rms rather
than in academic start-up or university spin-o
companies. This observation applies to inventions
made exclusively by academics as well as to inventions of academics with colleagues in industry and
elsewhere or inventions of academics made while
working in industry. As Figure 2 shows, less than
15% of all academic inventions are utilized in
start-upswhether exclusively invented by academics or in collaboration with industrialists or
while working in industry, herenot surprisinglythe value was below 10%. Inventions made
by academics in industry are mostly associated with
large and not small rms.
Type of academic patents by science and technology
elds
The three types of co-invention can be associated
with dierent science and technology areas to
varying degrees. For an overview of technology
areas, see Table I, for a summary by broad science
elds Table II. Purely academic inventions seem to
be predominantly associated with life sciences and
related to the technological areas of instrumentation, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and biotechnology. Inventions of academics and colleagues in
industry can be observed mostly in engineering
elds but also in life sciences with a strong focus
on the technological area of pharmaceuticals.
Inventions by academics in industry pertain to the
engineering disciplines and are most strongly

Figure 2.

Locality of utilization.

associated with telecommunications and materials

processing.

Dierent transfer patterns by science

and technology elds
The above ndings point to dierent patterns of
collaboration and transfer at work in the dierent
science and technology elds. They also raise the
question to what extent there might be dierences
in entrepreneurial intent of academic researchers
or a greater propensity towards utilizing the patented invention in a start-up/university spin-o
company as opposed to a large or established rm.
To explore this relationship, we looked at the
subset of inventions that were utilized in a commercial context.
The analysis of the survey responses indicates
that the commercial utilization of academic
inventions in start-up companies is slightly above
the expected value in the life sciences whereas it is
considerably below that value in the engineering
and materials sciences. While there are relatively
few natural science-related inventions, a considerable share of the natural-science inventions appear
to be utilized in start-ups. This triggers the question to what extent the above-average entrepreneurial activity in the area is created by necessity
rather than technology-driven: Could there be a

505

Academic Inventiveness and Entrepreneurship

Table I
Technology areas and patent types
Technology area

Type of university-related patents

Analysis, measurement, control

Pharmaceuticals/cosmetics
Organic, ne chemistry
Biotechnology
Materials processing
Medical engineering
Telecommunications
Macromolecular chemistry
Surfaces/coating
Engines, pumps, turbines
Environment/pollution
Audiovisual technology
Information technology

Purely academic (%)

Collaborative (%)

19
15
13
12
9
9
6

8
21
10
4
6
8
10

Industrial (%)

8
5
14
28
7
9
5
4

6
4

Note: Empty elds indicate areas of marginal activity with a patent share of less than 4%.

lack of industrial demand for technologies

developed in this area?
It should be noted that in overall terms, most of
the inventions still nd commercial application in
large rms rather than in new start-up ventures or
SMEs (see Tables III and IV).
A further analysis of inventions made by academics exclusively indicates a similar pattern. No
fundamental dierences can be observed. Tables V
and VI present an overview, following the same
approach as presented above. Large rms also
dominate here. They alone account for more than
half of the utilized academic patents. The small
numbers of patented inventions used in start-up
rms make it dicult to identify clear trends.

Table II
Science areas and patent types
Technology area

Life sciences
Engineering
and materials
Natural sciences
Other

Type of university-related patents

Purely
academic (%)

Collaborative
(%)

Industrial
(%)

52
32

33
40

22
66

13

17
10

8
4

Note: Empty elds indicate areas of marginal activity with a

patent share of less than 4%.

Natural-science related patents tend to be associated with start-ups relatively strongly.

Purely academic inventions compared
to collaborative patents
While the previous section analyzed commercialization channels in relation to science and technology elds, this section includes the collaboration
type in the analysis. First commercialization
channels are related to the collaboration type and
then, on a broader basis, science and technology
elds are included in the analysis.
Inventions that were made by academics
exclusively are utilized to a considerable extent in
start-up rms (see Table VII). However, the data
still points to the importance of large rms. Even
when no corporate co-inventor was involved, still
most patents were reported to be utilized in large
rms. Not surprisingly, the large rms account for
an even larger share of the exploited patents when
collaborative patents are examined.
One may now ask in light of the previous
ndings to what extent there are dierent nuances
between science elds. Table VIII presents an
overview for the three major science elds. Comparing results for the dierent science elds shows
that all elds are characterized by a strong association with large rms. In the life sciences, this
applies especially to collaborative eorts but also

506

Meyer
Table III
Observed utilization pattern (commercialization cases only)

Commercialization channel

Science eld

Total

Life science

Natural sciences

Engineering and materials

Other elds

Start up
SME
Large rm

8 (16.7%)
11 (22.9%)
29 (60.4%)

8 (36.4%)
2 (9.1%)
12 (54.5%)

7 (9.6%)
12 (16.4%)
54 (74.0%)

2 (33.3%)
4 (66.7%)

Total

48 (32.2%)

22 (14.8%)

73 (49.0%)

6 (4.0%)

Table IV
Observed versus expected utilization pattern7
Commercialization
channel

Start up
SME
Large rm

Science eld
Life
science

Natural
sciences

Engineering
and materials

Other
elds

1.08
1.26
0.91

2.36
0.50
0.82

0.62
0.91
1.11

1.84
1.00

more than 60% of the purely academic inventions

are used in large rms. In natural sciences and
engineering and materials, the large rm link is less
strong but still accounts for more than half of the
collaborative patents.
Looking at how patents that were not utilized
in a commercial context distribute across purely
academic patents and patents in collaboration
with external industrial partners indicates that in
particular life science inventions made only by
academics tend not to be used commercially to
the same extent as patents resulting from university/industry collaborations. About 34% of all
life-science patents remain without commercial
utilization, almost 89% of which are purely academic inventions. In contrast to this observation,

23 (15.4%)
27 (18.1%)
99 (66.4%)
149

the latter account for only two-thirds of all

commercialized life-science patents. This raises
the question as to whether life-science specic
aspects of the innovation process, in particular,
regulatory complexities lower the chances of an
entirely academic team of inventors and entrepreneurs to commercialize their inventions. Another question is whether the some academic
inventors patented for other than commercial
reasons.9 This point will need to be taken up in
future case-based research.

Does the university context make a dierence?

Research elsewhere has illustrated quite dierent
technology and science proles of Finnish universities (Meyer et al., 2003a). This raises the question
to what extent dierent science/technology and
entrepreneurial orientations can be associated with
dierent universities. Research in other countries
underlined that the extent of patenting varies
considerably from university to university (Geuna
and Nesta, 2004). This applies even more so to
support for entrepreneurial activity.
The data on universities with most commercialized patents suggests that there is a strong

Table V
Observed utilization pattern (purely academic cases only)
Commercialization channel

Start up
SME
Large rm
Total

Science eld
Life science

Natural sciences

Engineering and materials

7
9
20
36

6
2
9
17

3
6
14
23

(19.4%)
(25%)
(55.6)
(46.2%)

(35.3%)
(11.8%)
(52.9%)
(21.8%)

(13.0%)
(26.1%)
(60.9%)
(29.5%)

Total
Other elds

2 (100%)
2 (2.6%)

16 (20.5%)
19 (24.4%)
43 (55.1%)
78

507

Academic Inventiveness and Entrepreneurship

However, there are a number of dierences to be

observed (Tables IX and X).
Large rms play a dominant role in utilizing
inventions by academics based at the largest
(telecom and engineering-oriented) technical
university (A), whereas SMEs are only a marginal
factor. Start-up rms were reported to be
commercial users in line with expectations. One of
the largest universities by scientic and patenting
activity (C) reported relatively few academic
inventions. These tended then to occur considerably above the expected value. One of the large
regional universities (B) which accounted for more
commercialized patents than that university had
also a substantial share of start-ups and SMEs
using academic inventions.

Table VI
Observed versus expected utilization pattern8
Commercialization
channel

Start up
SME
Large rm

Science eld
Life
science

Natural
sciences

Engineering
and materials

Other
elds

0.95
1.03
1.01

1.72
0.48
0.96

0.64
1.07
1.10

0.49

variation between Finnish universities as to how

inventions of academic researchers are utilized.
Using the broader set of commercialized academic
patents, large rms are by far the largest group of
users yet there are dierences as to the extent to
which start-ups and SMEs play a role as users.

Table VII
Commercialization paths in relation to collaboration types
Collaboration type

Commercialization channel

Academic/industrial co-invention
Purely academic inventiona
Grand total
a

Total

Start-up

SME

Large rm

4 (12.5%)
10 (21.7%)
14 (17.9%)

4 (12.5%)
8 (17.4%)
12 (15.4%)

24 (75%)
28 (60.9%)
52 (66.7%)

32 (41.0%)
46 (59.0%)
78

Includes also collaborations with colleagues in non-university research organizations.

Table VIII
Commercialization paths in three major scientic elds
Collaboration type

Life sciences
Academic/industrial co-invention
Purely academic invention
Total
Natural sciences
Academic/industrial co-invention
Purely academic invention
Total
Engineering and materials
Academic/industrial co-invention
Purely academic invention
Total
a

Commercialization channel

Sub-totalb

No commercial utilizationb

Grand totalb

14 (26.4%)
39 (73.6%)
53

Start-upa

SMEa

Large rma

6 (26.1%)
6 (17.1%)

1 (8.3%)
3 (13.0%)
4 (11.5%)

11 (91.7%)
14 (60.9%)
25 (71.4%)

12 (34.8%)
23 (65.7%)
35

2 (11.1%)
16 (88.9%)
18 (34.0%)c

2 (22.2%)
3 (37.5%)
5 (29.4%)

2 (22.2%)
2 (11.8%)

5 (55.6%)
5 (62.5%)
10 (58.8%)

9 (52.9%)
8 (47.1%)
17

1 (33.3%)
2 (66.7%)
3 (15%)c

2 (22.2%)
1 (7.1%)
3 (13.0%)

1 (11.1%)
5 (35.7%)
6 (26.1%)

6 (66.7%)
8 (57.1%)
14 (60.9%)

9 (39.1%)
14 (60.9%)
23

5 (38.5%)
8 (61.5%)
13 (36.1%)c

10 (50%)
10 (50%)
20
14 (38.9%)
22 (61.1%)
36

The percentages in this column refer to the share of that category in relation to the rows sub-total.

The percentages in this column refer to the share of that category in relation to the respective column total per science eld, unless
specied otherwise.
c
The percentages refer to the share of patents without commercial application in relation to all, i.e., commercialized and noncommercial, patents.

508

Meyer
Table IX
Patents by inventor aliation and commercialization channel

University

Commercialization Channel
Start up

A
B
C
D
E
Grand total

8 (14.5%)
5 (20%)
4 (22.2%)
1 (6.7%)
23 (15.4%)

Table X
Observed versus expected utilization patterns
University

A
B
C
D
E

Commercialization channel
Start up

SME

Large rm

0.94
1.30
1.44

0.20
1.32
1.53
1.62
1.84

1.23
0.84
0.75
1.06
0.90

0.43

5. Discussion and conclusions

The ndings reported in this paper need to be
interpreted carefully. In particular, one needs to
take into consideration the characteristics of the
Finnish innovation system that could have an
impact on academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship and their relationship with elds of science and technology. This includes the regulations
on the ownership of intellectual property in institutes of higher education, the countrys overall
technological specialization and the comparatively
moderate level of technology entrepreneurship (see
e.g. Reynolds et al., 2002). In addition, one has to
bear in mind that the data reported covers at least
partially a time period in which innovation support structures were as developed as they are
today. Furthermore, the data does not allow any
conclusions about the value of the various patents.
Taking these limitations into account, the
ndings allow us to place the university-spin o
and academic start-up phenomenon in a broader
context of technology transfer activities. The data
suggest that large rms are still the most frequent
users of university-invented technology. Start-up

Total

SME

Large rm

2
6
5
5
5
27

45
14
9
12
9
99

(3.6%)
(24%)
(27.8%)
(29.4%)
(33.3%)
(18.1%)

(81.8%)
(56%)
(50%)
(70.6%)
(60%)
(66.4%)

55
25
18
17
15
149

and university spin-o rms play an important

role in the (broadly dened) eld of life sciences
and also in natural sciences. In the latter area, the
observed number of patents utilized in start-ups
exceeds the expected number. Natural sciences are
commonly viewed as the science eld that is the
most distant from industry. One may speculate
whether the observed number of start-ups is
therefore more a sign of the necessity to set up a
company to utilize the inventions rather than
strong entrepreneurial opportunity.
Also, we observed a lower degree of commercial
application of purely academic life-science inventions than collaborative inventions by industry,
much stronger so than in the two other science
domains. This triggers the question to what extent
the lower commercialization rate of purely
academic inventions is related to a lack of business-related knowledge and skills in particular in
relation to the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals
industries. Here regulatory aspects play a critical
role which could proof to be too complex challenges for an essentially academic team of inventor
entrepreneurs to master. This view corresponds to
research that stresses the bottlenecks entrepreneurial teams in research-based spin-os face
especially at early stages of the commercialisation
process (Clarysse and Moray, 2004).
Moreover, the data illustrated that there can be
considerable dierences between universities in
their utilization proles. Some are clearly drawn
to large rms as the almost exclusive utilization
partner of academic inventors whereas inventors
in other universities report a higher degree of
start-up activities. The latter group of universities
is more associated with the natural and life sciences than engineering elds. This raises the

Academic Inventiveness and Entrepreneurship

question whether genuine entrepreneurial intent or

rather the necessity to become entrepreneurial
given the lack of industrial demand is the driving
motivation of academic inventor-entrepreneurs.
This again is related to the question to what extent
universities can serve as stimulators or regional
innovation organizers (e.g. Etzkowitz et al., 2000).
While analysts may observe regional geographic
concentrations (Henderson et al., 1998; Hicks
et al., 2001) of science-technology links, the overall level of inventive and start-up activity is relatively modest. Some universities closer to life and
natural sciences may be associated with a higher
level of inventive and start-up activity but one
must still question the viability of regional clusters. In small countries, such as Finland, there are
few regions with the necessary concentration of
R&D, inventive, and entrepreneurial activity.
Here other ways of bundling expertise and translating it into commercial applications need to be
found.
Naturally, this study raised a number of issues
that need to be explored in future research. In
particular, further exploration of inventors and
other stakeholders perception of support measures and entrepreneurial orientation of the university is necessary to learn more to what extent
local policies or disciplinary composition of the
university inuence the commercialization paths of
academic inventions. Another point to be taken up
is the motivation for entrepreneurial activity on
the side of academics. Especially in the natural
sciences, academics seem to be involved in commercializing their research to a greater extent than
one might expect. Even though natural sciences is
a broadly dened eld, including mathematics as
well as physics, it is commonly viewed as relatively
distant from an application context. Future research should explore how the elds relative
remoteness from an industrial context can be related to dierent types of entrepreneurship. Do
academics see themselves forced to set up companies as a way to demonstrate they do applicationoriented research? Do these academic start-ups
serve as another shell for hosting research activities? Or are academic entrepreneurs pursuing
exciting technological opportunities commercially
and thereby lling a gap the established industry
seems not to recognize?

509

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Tanja Sinilainen
and Jan Timm Utecht for their contributions to
the research project on which this paper is based.
Comments by the workshop participants were
much appreciated.
Notes
1. See, for instance, Etzkowitz (1983), Manseld (1991),
Manseld and Lee (1996), Etzkowitz et al. (2000). For a
broader overview of universityindustrygovernment relations,
see the recent contribution by Leydesdor and Meyer (2003).
2. See, for instance, the recent Lambert (2003) review of
business-university collaboration in the UK. A number of
academic studies and reports expressed some skepticism about
the importance of academic start-up or university spin-out
companies as the means of technology transfer. See e.g. Florida
(1999) or Salter et al. (2000).
3. In Finland, as in other countries, such as Sweden or Italy,
academic faculty own all the rights to their inventions. The
share of university-owned among all academic patents is
therefore low (below 10%) and marginal with respect to national patenting activity. Technology transfer organizations do
exist in Finnish universities but so far they could exercise a
facilitating function as far as researcher patents are concerned.
4. In addition, further material is made available at http://
www.KnowledgeFlows.com.
5. For instance, the rst science park and incubator in Finland
was set up in Oulu in 1982. As Abetti (2004) points out, there
was only one struggling incubator in the Helsinki region,
which accounts for about half of the countrys R&D expenditure, while incubators were growing rapidly in the US, Canada,
the UK, and many other countries. Since the mid-1990s the
Finnish government actors have taken considerable eorts to
establish incubator facilities as well as a number of other
innovation services.
6. See, e.g. Niosi (2004) or Pirnay et al. (2003).
7. The calculation of expected values is based on matrix
products for each cell in the previous table on observed utilization patterns. The expected values are then related to the
actually observed values. A value of 1 indicates that there
exactly as many observed as expected patents associated with
the eld in question. A value of, e.g. 2 would indicate that
there twice as many patents were observed than could be
expected; a value of 0.5 in turn would mean only half as
many patents were observed in this category than could be
expected.
8. See footnote 7.
9. For instance, Schild (2004) argues in her study of
academic inventors in Sweden that scientists may be motivated to patent their inventions for a range of other, noncommercial reasons, such as increasing chances of getting
research funding, attracting students, keeping control over
the idea and its exploitation, or keeping research ticking
over.

510
References
Abetti, P.A., 2004, Government-Supported Incubators in the
Helsinki Region, Finland: Infrastructure, Results, and Best
Practices, Journal of Technology Transfer 29, 1940.
Clark, B.R., 1998, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities, Oxford: Pergamon.
Clarysse, B., and N. Moray, 2004, A Process Study of Untrepreneurial Team Formation: The Case of a Research-Based
Spin-o, Journal of Business Venturing 19 (1), 5579.
Debackere, K., 2000, Managing Academic R&D as a Business
at K.U. Leuven-context, Structure and Process, R&D
Management 30 (4), 323328.
Etzkowitz, H., 1983, Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science,
Minerva 21 (23), 198233.
Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra,
2000, The Future of the University and the University of
the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial
Paradigm, Research Policy 29 (2), 313330.
Florida, R., 1999, The Role of the University: Leveraging
Talent, Not Technology, Issues in Science and Technology
15 (4), 6773.
Geuna, A. and P. Nesta, 2004, University Patenting and Its
Eects on Academic Research: The Emerging European
Evidence, Research Policy (2006 forthcoming).
Henderson, R., A. Jae, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed
Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988, Review of
Economics and Statistics 13, 119127.
Hicks, D., T. Breitzman, D. Olivastro, and K. Hamilton, 2001,
The Changing Composition of Innovative Activity in the
US A Portrait Based on Patent Analysis, Research Policy
30 (4), 681703.
Lambert, R., 2003, Lambert Review of Business-University
Collaboration, London: HM Treasury.
Leydesdor, L., and M. Meyer, 2003, The Triple Helix of
UniversityIndustryGovernment Relations, Scientometrics 58 (2), 191203.
Manseld, E., 1991, Academic Research and Industrial Innovations, Research Policy 26, 773776.

Meyer
Manseld, E., and J.Y. Lee, 1996, The Modern University:
Contributor to Industrial Innovation and Recipient of
Industrial R&D Support, Research Policy 25, 1047
1058.
Meyer, M., 2003a, Academic Entrepreneurs or Entrepreneurial
Academics? Research-based Ventures and Public Support
Mechanisms, R&D Management 33 (2), 107115.
Meyer, M., 2003b, Academic Patents as an Indicator of Useful
Research. A New Approach to Measure Academic Inventiveness, Research Evaluation 12 (1), 1727.
Meyer, M., T. Goloubeva, and J.T. Utecht, 2003a, Free Patent
Information as a Resource for Policy Analysis, World
Patent Information 25 (3), 223231.
Meyer, M., T. Sinilainen, and J.T. Utecht, 2003b, Towards
Hybrid Triple Helix Indicators A Study of Universityrelated Patents and a Survey of Inventors, Scientometrics 58
(2), 321350.
Niosi, J., 2004, Success Factors in Canadian Academic Spinos, Paper presented at the University Incubator Conference, Montreal, 27 February 2004, Journal of Technology
Transfer, 31(4), 451457, 2004.
Pirnay, F., B. Surlemont, and F. Nlemvo, 2003, Toward a
Typology of University Spin-os Small Business Economics
21 (4), 355369.
Reynolds, P.D., W.D. Bygrave, E. Autio, L.W. Cox, and M.
Hay, 2002, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2002 Executive
Report, Babson College, Ewing Marion Kaumann Foundation, and London Business School.
Salter, A., P. DEste, B. Martin et al. 2002, Talent, not Technology: The Impact of Publicly Funded Research on Innnovation in the UK, SPRU, University of Sussex.
Schild, I., 2004, Patent or Perish. On the Nature and Role of
Patenting Amongst Linkoping University Researchers,
Working paper, Umea University, Department of Sociology.
Tomes, A., 2003, UK Government Science Policy: The
enterprise decit Fallacy, Technovation 23, 785792.
Van Looy, B., J. Callaert, K. Debackere, and A. Verbeek, 2003,
Patent Related Indicators for Assessing Knowledge-generating Institutions: Toward a Contextualised Approach,
Journal of Technology Transfer 28 (1), 5361.