| Summary: | In this paper we explore the degree to which patents are representative of the magnitude,
direction, and impact of the knowledge spilling out of the university by focusing on MIT, and in particular on the departments of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering.
Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data, we show that patenting is a minority
activity: a majority of the faculty in our sample never patent, and publication rates
far outstrip patenting rates. Most faculty members estimate that patents account for
less than 10% of the knowledge that transfers from their labs. Our results also suggest
that in two important ways patenting is not representative of the patterns of knowledge
generation and transfer from MIT: patent volume does not predict publication volume,
and those firms that cite MIT papers are in general not the same firms as those that
cite MIT patents. However, patent volume is positively correlated with paper citations,
suggesting that patent counts may be reasonable measures of research impact. We close
by speculating on the implications of our results for the difficult but important question
of whether, in this setting, patenting acts as a substitute or a complement to the process
of fundamental research.
|
|---|