Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

University Knowledge Transfer: From Fundamental Rights to Open Access Within International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law, Development and Innovation

Part of the book series: SxI - Springer for Innovation / SxI - Springer per l'Innovazione ((SXIINNO,volume 13))

Abstract

Education, research, cooperation, and social participation all play a role in innovation as a catalyst for economic and social progress. Universities are among the chief stakeholders in this process. Nonetheless privatization of scientific outputs weakens the benefits of science to society and undermines the norms of science, which are based on accessing and sharing knowledge. Indeed, there is growing disorder in setting university missions whereby IP is evaluated as a value in of itself. Yet, scientific results are a collective achievement, built on vast quantities of publicly funded research and university knowledge transfer occurs mostly through open conferences, databases, and publications. This chapter focuses on scholarly publishing as a segment of knowledge transfer. It will examine open access as a tool that, according to a holistic approach, contributes to establishing a balance among all basic rights at stake, including academic freedom. The idea of a pluralistic system of knowledge transfer where “open” and “proprietary” models are not mutually exclusive will be defended. Moreover, an incentive-oriented copyright change, tailored to the specific needs of research, might be built on the TRIPS flexibility. While TRIPS prohibits discrimination, it does not prevent States from treating different situations differently. Accordingly, we might imagine a paradigm shift in the protection of academic works. Indeed, while moral right is a cornerstone, commercial exploitation of publications is not the aim of academic authors. Therefore, applying a “functional” perspective to IP the work should be protectable as long as its market needs to be preserved.

Only the educated are free

Epictetus, Discourses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Carrier (2009).

  2. 2.

    Reichman (2009).

  3. 3.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) April 15, 1994, Article 28.1 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round, vol. 31, 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994).

  4. 4.

    Word Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, December 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 65 (1997).

  5. 5.

    See Deere (2011) 34 ff.

  6. 6.

    Cimoli et al. (2014) p. 1.

  7. 7.

    Deere (2011).

  8. 8.

    Cimoli et al. (2014).

  9. 9.

    Ibid, 5.

  10. 10.

    Among others see Dreyfuss (2014), Cimoli et al. (2014), Kapczynski (2010).

  11. 11.

    Dosi and Stiglitz (2014), p. 1, Dreyfuss (2014), Reichman (2009), Maskus (2000a, b).

  12. 12.

    See e.g. Chon (2007).

  13. 13.

    See Antoci et al. (2002).

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    See Stiglitz (2013).

  16. 16.

    See Brahmbhatt and Hu (2007).

  17. 17.

    Grossman and Lai (2002).

  18. 18.

    See e.g. Cimoli et al. (2014).

  19. 19.

    Dreyfuss (2014).

  20. 20.

    Reichman (2009).

  21. 21.

    The word “academic” in this essay includes not only teaching and research at university but also research and scholarship in independent publicly funded institutions.

  22. 22.

    See Ginsburg (2003).

  23. 23.

    The term “university” in this essay refers to a wholly or largely publicly funded research and higher education institution. In a broader sense it may also include private but non-profit research bodies that share common missions and functions around research, teaching and public service.

  24. 24.

    On the mentioned topic there is abundant economic literature from the last 20 years. See e.g. Albuquerque, Bernardes, (2003), Dasgupta and David (1994), Perez and Soete (1988).

  25. 25.

    See Nelson (2005).

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Some scholars argue in favor of abolishing copyright; see Shavell (2010), p. 301, Breyer (1970), pp. 281–355. More generally, while the commodification of science is strengthening, the legal academy is beginning to challenge the idea that intellectual property incentives are necessary at all. See Raustiala and Sprigman (2012), Boldrin and Levine (2008), Barnett (2005).

  28. 28.

    Some form of compensation may be provided for certain genres, such as teaching materials, handbooks, etc.

  29. 29.

    See Suber (2012), 29 ff.

  30. 30.

    There is no empirical evidence that copyright increases authors’ earnings. See Towse (2001).

  31. 31.

    See, among others, So et al. (2014), Dreyfuss (2013), Eisenberg and Rai (2003), Eisenberg (1996).

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Alperin et al. (2014). More generally on the subject, see Reichman (2009). On international scientific collaboration see e.g. Forero-Pineda (2006).

  33. 33.

    Rai et al. (2012).

  34. 34.

    See Radder (2010).

  35. 35.

    See Kerr (1963).

  36. 36.

    On the side effect of the BD approach in the US, see Dreyfuss (2013), Winickoff (2013), Johnson (2008), Litan et al. (2007), Movery and Sampat (2001). Concerns especially with regard to changing in academic norms such as open, swift, disinterested scientific exchange e.g. in Greenberg (2007), Washbourn (2005), Blumnethal et al. (1996).

  37. 37.

    Public Law 96-517, 6(a), 94 Stat. 3015, 3019–3027(1980).

  38. 38.

    See Winickoff (2013). On the transformation of the American university see Kleinman (2013).

  39. 39.

    “Bayh-Dole effectively shifted federal policy from a position of putting the result of government-sponsored research directly into the public domain for use by all, to a pro-patent position that stressed the need for exclusive rights as an incentive to industry to undertake the costly investment necessary to bring new products to market”. National Academy of Sciences (1997), p. 3.

  40. 40.

    About “utilization” of research findings see Petrusson (2009).

  41. 41.

    See So et al. (2014). The authors highlight that BD “provided the means, by expanding eligibility standards to include basic research and research tools… Rather than promote commercialization, these patents on basic research platforms constitute a veritable tax on commercialization”.

  42. 42.

    So et al. (2008).

  43. 43.

    Kleinman (2010).

  44. 44.

    These types of issues figured centrally in the Berkeley-Novartis relationship in the late 1990s and in the case of Betty Dong, a University of California San Francisco researcher studying the efficacy of a thyroid medicine. Boots Pharmaceutical, the funder of Dong’s work and the manufacturer of Synthroid, engaged in a sustained campaign to prevent Dong from publishing results that showed that Boots’ drug was no more effective than three cheaper competing drugs. See Washburn (2005), Krimsky (2003), Rudy et al. (2007). See also Brown (2013).

  45. 45.

    Musschenga et al. (2010).

  46. 46.

    A study among German life scientists showed that those who receive industry funding are more likely to deny others’ requests for access to research materials. See Czarnitzki et al. (2014).

  47. 47.

    Blumnethal et al. (1996).

  48. 48.

    Dreyfuss (2013).

  49. 49.

    See Forero-Pineda (2006).

  50. 50.

    See Stiglitz (2008).

  51. 51.

    See e.g. Slaughter and Rhoades (1996), Nelson (2001), Geuna and Nesta (2006). Some authors argue that engagement in university-industry relations produces high-quality research output because these activities have positive effects. See Thursby and Thursby (2011), Van Looy et al. (2004), Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000).

  52. 52.

    Petrusson (2009).

  53. 53.

    See Mitroff (1974), Mulkay (1980).

  54. 54.

    Recently, countries from China and Brazil to Malaysia and South Africa have passed laws promoting the patenting of publicly funded research and a similar proposal is under legislative consideration in India. See Nezu (2007), Srivastava and Chandra (2012).

  55. 55.

    See e.g. So et al. (2014), Dreyfuss (2013), Nezu (2007), Forero-Pineda (2006), Correa (2005), Cruz (1998).

  56. 56.

    See Reichman et al. (2008). As for the Italian situation, see Arezzo (2013).

  57. 57.

    Matkin (1990).

  58. 58.

    Radder (2010).

  59. 59.

    Kleinman (2010).

  60. 60.

    Radder (2010) pp. 231 ff.

  61. 61.

    See Vallas and Keinman (2008).

  62. 62.

    See Moscon (2015), Reichman and Okediji (2012), Hilty (2006).

  63. 63.

    Leydesdorff (2008), p. 282.

  64. 64.

    Horowitz (2007).

  65. 65.

    Winickoff (2013).

  66. 66.

    Guédon (2001).

  67. 67.

    Russel (2008).

  68. 68.

    For more details, see Priest (2012), pp. 10 ff.

  69. 69.

    See Moscon (2013a).

  70. 70.

    Reichman and Okediji (2012).

  71. 71.

    Among others, see Rice (1990), p. 157, Lemley (2012).

  72. 72.

    From a critical perspective, see Hilty (2006) pp. 180 ff.

  73. 73.

    Horowitz (2007) p. 38.

  74. 74.

    Caso (2013b), Jordan (2003) pp. 15 and 92.

  75. 75.

    Suber (2012), pp. 129 ff.

  76. 76.

    See Caso (2013b).

  77. 77.

    On Internet developments, see Berners-Lee (1999).

  78. 78.

    Roosendaal and Geurts (1997).

  79. 79.

    Caso (2013b).

  80. 80.

    An avenue of enquiry opens up here regarding the management and protection of databases that becomes even more relevant with regard to big data.

  81. 81.

    Strong criticisms against the use of Thomson-Reuters’ Journal Impact Factor (IF) to evaluate research output in general has been shown in the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment [DORA, http://www.ascb.org/dora/], 2012. Criticism specific to its use in evaluating research productivity outside of Europe and North America in Alperin et al. (2011), Gúedon (2008), Vessuri et al. (2013).

  82. 82.

    Horowitz (2007), p. 38.

  83. 83.

    Take, for example, the case of the social sciences in Argentina, where the percentage of articles published in local and regional journals is as high as 80 % (Gantman 2011). In Latin America more broadly, over 50 % of the journals identified by Latindex (a Directory of journals published in Latin America) are from the social sciences.

  84. 84.

    Alperin et al. (2014), UNESCO (2014).

  85. 85.

    Testa (2012).

  86. 86.

    Ibid.

  87. 87.

    Desantes Real (2011).

  88. 88.

    As for the role of collaboration within the present research activities, see the OECD (2013) and the Royal Society reports (2011).

  89. 89.

    Cohen (2000), Agrawall and Henderson (2002).

  90. 90.

    Royal Society Report (2011).

  91. 91.

    Dreyfuss (2013).

  92. 92.

    Merton (1973).

  93. 93.

    This also emerged from a study by the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, January 14 2002, in which the potential conflicts between “publishing” and “patenting” strategies were considered.

  94. 94.

    See Tartari and Breschi (2012) p. 1117.

  95. 95.

    Ludington (2011a) pp. 397–432.

  96. 96.

    About that need in the US environment, see Atkinson (Atkinson 2004).

  97. 97.

    On this point, see Hilty et al. (2009), p. 309. According to the EU Commission, the authors mentioned refer to “a Fifth Freedom” that would set a new paradigm regarding the free circulation of knowledge. This is particularly relevant for scientific information and knowledge.

  98. 98.

    See Dershowitz (2005).

  99. 99.

    It is intriguing to note that the idea of academic freedom, born in the German universities of the early nineteenth century, was substantially limited by political and social restraints and conditioned by German nationalism. See Herbst (1965).

  100. 100.

    See Atkinson (2004), Commager (1963), p. 361.

  101. 101.

    Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 23. Mai 1949, Article 5(3): “Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung.” The constitutional provisions that explicitly proclaim the freedom of research in European countries are directly related to the events of the Second World War. See Santosuosso et al. (2007), p. 342.

  102. 102.

    See Article 14(1) of the German Constitution.

  103. 103.

    See Article 5(1) of the German Constitution.

  104. 104.

    See Article 12(1) of the German Constitution.

  105. 105.

    See Lutz (2012), Leinemann (1998), 53 ff.

  106. 106.

    Pernice (2004), pp. 28 ff.

  107. 107.

    Steinhauer (2010), pp. 43 ff., Fehling (2010), p. 74, Jarass and Pieroth, pp. 122 ff.; Sanberger (2006), pp. 818 and 820, Krasser and Schricker (1998), pp. 128 and 152.

  108. 108.

    Pflueger and Ertmann (2004), pp. 436 and 441.

  109. 109.

    This also emerged from a study by the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, January 14 2002, in which the potential conflicts between “publishing” and “patenting” strategies were considered.

  110. 110.

    Fechner (1999), pp. 288 ff. and 328, Bethge (2009), 220 ff.

  111. 111.

    See Article 42 of the ArbEG.

  112. 112.

    An overview of this topic is found in Guarda (2013).

  113. 113.

    “Anderung des Gesetzes u ̈ber Arbeitnehmererfindungen,” Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I, Nr. 4, January 24 2002.

  114. 114.

    See Article 42(4) of the ArbEG.

  115. 115.

    “Das Grundrecht des Artikels 5 Abs. 3 GG gebietet zwar nicht die Rechtsinhaberschaft des Hochschullehrer an seinen Forschungsergebnissen, denn die Forschungsfreiheit umfasst nicht das Recht auf kommerzielle Nutzung von Wissenschaft-Erfindungen,” BT-Dr 14/5975 of 9 May 2001; BR-Dr 583/01 of August 17 2001.

  116. 116.

    On the relationship between the commercial exploitation right and the right to publish in the light of academic freedom, see Moscon (2015).

  117. 117.

    See, Herrera Diaz (2010), p. 95; Ulrici (2008), pp. 205 ff.; Pramann (2007), pp. 46 ff.; Schricker and Krasser (1998), pp. 419 ss. Heerman (1999), p. 468; Haberstumpf (2001), pp. 819 and 826. As for the UK legal system, see Rahmatian (2014); for Spain, see de Roman Perez (2012); for France, see Lucas–Schloetter (2008).

  118. 118.

    As Connolly observes, “academic freedom is a kind of cousin of freedom of speech” Connolly (2000), p. 71. In the same direction, Daughtrey (1991), pp. 213–271. See also Turner (1988).

  119. 119.

    See the UDHR, Article 26 and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 13.

  120. 120.

    See the UDHR, Article 26 and the ICESCR, Article 15 (1)(a). A right to share in cultural life is also found in Article 30, Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2007.

  121. 121.

    ICESCR Article 15 (1)(b).

  122. 122.

    For a comparative analysis of academic freedom in terms of both individual and institutional independence, see Karran (2007).

  123. 123.

    See Robertson (1977–1978), p. 1204.

  124. 124.

    See Monotti and Ricketson (2003).

  125. 125.

    “Explanations relating to the charter of fundamental rights” (2007/C 303/02).

  126. 126.

    See Article 10(2) ECHR: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.

  127. 127.

    Recommendation (2000), p. 8 of the Committee of Ministers of March 30 2000 on the research mission of universities, adopted at the 705th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

  128. 128.

    Recommendation (2006) 1762 of the Parliamentary Assembly of June 30 2006 on academic freedom and university autonomy, adopted by the Assembly on June 30 2006.

  129. 129.

    The Magna Charta of European Universities is the final outcome of the proposal put forward by the University of Bologna, in 1986, to the oldest European universities. The document, drafted in Barcelona in January 1988, was signed by several universities. The document is available at http://www.magna-charta.org/cms/cmspage.aspx?pageUid1⁄4{d4bd2cba-e26b-499e-80d5-b7a2973d5d97}.

  130. 130.

    See Yu (2009), pp. 979 ff.

  131. 131.

    Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (2001), Submission by the African Group, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Peru, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Venezuela, IP/C/W/296, para 18.

  132. 132.

    For a comprehensive review of the OA literature, see Frosio (2014).

  133. 133.

    Open access principles arise from some scientific communities, such as physicists, in which sharing articles is an established practice. See the arXiv repository at http://arxiv.org/.

  134. 134.

    See Berlin Declaration 2003, available at http://openaccess.mpg.de/286432/Berlin-Declaration. At the European level, see EU Recommendation 17 July 2012 (2012/417/EU) on access to and preservation of scientific information. In the US, Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research, available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html.

  135. 135.

    See Harnad et al. (2004).

  136. 136.

    See The Directory of Open Access Repositories—OpenDOAR, at http://www.opendoar.org/.

  137. 137.

    See Millington (2011). A list of journals that allow OA re-publication is available at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.html.

  138. 138.

    Björk and Solomon (2014), Final Report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Austrian Science Fund, the Luxembourg National Research Fund, and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. Available at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf.

  139. 139.

    Hybrid OA has met with some criticism from the literature. The risk is having to pay twice: first, when the author or the institution pays extra APCs in order to have their papers appear without the gatekeeping charges and, second, because libraries and institutions still have to pay for the journal subscription. See Adams (2007), Bjork (2012), p. 1496.

  140. 140.

    See Suber (2012), pp. 65 ff., Herb (2010).

  141. 141.

    On the interfacing between open and private models, see Hilty and Köklü (2013).

  142. 142.

    Ohly (2014), 75 ff.

  143. 143.

    See Altmetric Manifesto at http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. See Eve (2013).

  144. 144.

    For a discussion of the so-called open peer review or peer-to-peer review, see Fitzpatrick and Santo (2012).

  145. 145.

    Armbruster (2005). About models that entail post-publication peer review, see Shirky (2008).

  146. 146.

    Piwowar points out the potential advantages that are especially relevant in the context of OA indicators for developing regions. See Pinowar (2013).

  147. 147.

    In the last few years the field of altmetrics has received a lot of attention. See e.g. Bailey (Bailey 2013). PLOS has a special altmetrics collection available at http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info:doi/10.1371/issue.pcol.v02.i19. The American Society for Information Science and Technology published a special altmetrics issue available at https://asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_Konkiel_Scherer.html.

  148. 148.

    See Alperin et al. (2014).

  149. 149.

    See Piwowar (2013).

  150. 150.

    Some researches show that proper recognition of full Open Access journals by the community remains a major obstacle to overcome if they are to become a viable alternative to scholarly communication. As in other social contexts that rely more on collective action and reciprocal recognition than on a top-down structure, social norms tend to prevail over laws because they seem better able to regulate social interactions. This is underlined by a wealth of literature. Furthermore, though we generally think of academics as a unified group, their social norms are actually localized and vary across disciplines and national boundaries. See Migheli and Ramello (2014), Migheli and Ramello (2013), pp. 149–167, Björk (2004), p. 1; Eger et al. (2013).

  151. 151.

    See Kaufman (2008). More generally, see Albert (2006), p. 253, Stevenson (2010).

  152. 152.

    See Lametti (2010), p. 309, Geiger (2013).

  153. 153.

    Suber (2012).

  154. 154.

    With regard to the German legal system, see Lutz (2012), Krujatz (2012), Steinhauer (2010). For the US, see Priest (2012). For Italy, see Caso (2013). As for Spain see, de Roman Perez (2012).

  155. 155.

    See http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/.

  156. 156.

    Artículo 37 (Difusión en acceso abierto), Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación.

  157. 157.

    § 4, Law October 7 2013, no. 112.

  158. 158.

    Law October 1 2013 (BGBl. I S. 3714).

  159. 159.

    Marzetti (2013).

  160. 160.

    See the “Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research” at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html.

  161. 161.

    Division G., Title II, Sect. 218 of PL 110–161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008).

  162. 162.

    Carroll (2008).

  163. 163.

    See Snyder (2009), p. 127.

  164. 164.

    See White House Office of Science and Technology, Memorandum for the Heads of Executives Departments and Agencies, Increasing Access to the Results of Federally funded Scientific Research (23 February 2013) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf. See also Suber (2013).

  165. 165.

    The California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Legislation (AB 609). See more at http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/state/ab609#sthash.bi9lAuau.dpuf.

  166. 166.

    See Guibault (2013).

  167. 167.

    http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2011-9617.

  168. 168.

    See, de Roman Perez (2012).

  169. 169.

    The scope of this expression has still not been clarified by the legislature. According to some first comments, “scientific work” includes not only written works but also technical projects, designs, tables, three-dimensional models, etc. See Wandtke and Bullinger (2014), pp. 15–25.

  170. 170.

    See von Lewinski and Thum (2011).

  171. 171.

    http://repositorios.mincyt.gob.ar/recursos.php.

  172. 172.

    Jisc Collections is still collecting data from institutions, encouraging them to submit in a standard form that it provides. See more at https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/uk/open-access/2015/2/22-universities-spent--9m-on-open-access-in-2014--reveals-Jisc-data.html#sthash.2SDGRLFu.dpuf.

  173. 173.

    On the importance of having several works published in OA so developing further OA publications, see Harnad (2010), Harnad (2013), (2014), Houghton and Swan (2013).

  174. 174.

    See Kuhlen and Dewatripont (2006).

  175. 175.

    The path of incentives does indeed seem to be easier. Besides, in academia there is doubt whether an obligation to publish in OA is legitimate and respectful of academic freedom. With regard to the German legal system, see Lutz (2012), Krujatz (2012), Steinhauer (2010). On the US contest, see Priest (2012). For the Italian one, see Caso (2013).

  176. 176.

    See, de Roman Perez (2012).

  177. 177.

    See Polany (1967).

  178. 178.

    Dreyfuss (2014). According to the author, “More attention needs to be paid to the impact of intellectual property rights on human rights, culture, and development […] intellectual property rights are traditionally justified as a mechanism for generating incentives to innovate”.

  179. 179.

    Many studies highlight the need to take into consideration different aspects of a legal order and not only intellectual property with regard to knowledge transfer. See e.g. Burlamqui and Cimoli (2010).

  180. 180.

    Deere (2011).

  181. 181.

    This has been pointed out also by Correa (2005).

  182. 182.

    See e.g. Barton (2003), Reichman and Uhlir (2003).

  183. 183.

    Reichman (2009), Stiglitz (2005).

  184. 184.

    See WTO, Doc. WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2 (14 Nov. 2001). Paragraph 5(a) of this declaration states that “In applying the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, each provision of the TRIPS Agreement as expressed, in particular, in its objectives and principles.”.

  185. 185.

    Ohly (2014).

References

  • Agrawall A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer at MIT Mgmt. Sci. 48(1):44–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque E, Bernardes A (2003) Cross-over, thresholds and interactions between science and technology: a tentative simplified model and initial notes about statistics from 120 countries. Res Policy 32:867–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleprin JP, Babini D, Fischman G (eds) (2014) Open Access indicators and scholarly communications in Latin America. CLACSO, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Almirall E, Casadesus-Masanell R (2010) Open versus closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence. Acad Manag Rev 35(1):27–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoci A, Sacco PL, Vanin P (2002) Il rischio dell’impoverimento sociale nelle economie avanzate. In: Sacco PL, Zamagni S (eds) Complessità relazionale e comportamento economico. Materiali per un nuovo paradigma di razionalità, Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Arezzo E (2013) La tutela e la valorizzazione della ricerca universitaria in tempi di crisi. Riv Dir Ind 148–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers (March 6, 2007) Nine points to consider in licensing University Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson RC (2004) Academic freedom and the research university. Proc Am Philos Soc 148(2):195–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey C (2013) Altmetrics bibliography. Houston Digital Scholarship. Version 1: 10/14/2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajon B (2010) Interessenausglecih im Wissenschafturheberrecht? Wissenschraftschrancken nach dem “Zweiten koerb” der Urheberrechtsreform. Wissenschaftliche Schriften der WWU Münster, Reihe III, Band 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin C, von Hippel E (2009) Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No 10-038. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1502864

  • Barnett JM (2005) Shopping for Gucci on Canal Street: reflections on status consumption, intellectual property, and the incentive thesis. Va L Rev 91:1381–1423

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton J (2003) Integrating IPRs policies in development strategies. In: Bellman et al (eds) Trading in knowledge. Development perspectives on TRIPS. Trade and sustainabiliy. Earthscan Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David J, Zloczower A (1962) Universities and academic systems in modern societies. Eur J Sociol 3:45–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David J, Zloczower A (1991/1962) Universities and academic systems in modern societies, in scientific growth: essays on the social organization and ethos of science, pp 125–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Berners-Lee T (1999) Weaving the web. The original design and ultimate destiny of the world wide web by its inventor. HarperCollins, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethge H (2009) Sachs (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar. C.H. Beck, Munich, p 220

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjork BC (2013) Open Access—are the barriers to change receding? Publications 1(1):5–15. http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/1/5

  • Blau PM (1973) The organization of academic mind. Macmillan Book Publishing Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumnethal D, Causino N, Campbell E, Louis KS (1996) Relationships between Academic Institutions and industry in the life science: an industry survey. N Engl J Med 334:368–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok D (1982) Beyond the ivory tower: social responsibilities of the Modern University. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldrin M, Levine DK (2008) Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brahmbhatt M, Hu A (2007) Ideas and innovation in East Asia. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7596 License: CC BY 3.0 Unported

  • Braun T, Dióspatonyi I (2005) Counting the gatekeepers of international science journals a worthwhile science indicator. Curr Sci 89(9):1548–1551. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102005/1548.pdf

  • Brown A (2012) Intellectual property, human rights and competition. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Burlamqui L, Cimoli M (2010) From intellectual property to knowledge governance. In: Stiglitz J, Cimoli M, Dosi G, Reichman J (eds) Intellectual property rights: legal and economic challenges for development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 477–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush V (1945) Science, the endless frontier, a report to the President. United States Government Printing Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne JP (2006) Constitutional academic freedom after Grutter. Getting real about the four freedoms of a university. Univ Colorado Law Rev 77:907–929

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell E, Weissman JS, Causino N, Blumenthal D (2000) Data-withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Res Policy 29:303–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrier MA (2009) Innovation for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll MW (2008) Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy—Copyright considerations and options. http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/NIH_Copyright_v1.pdf

  • Caso R (2013) La legge italiana sull’accesso aperto agli articoli scientifici: una prima panoramica, in AEDON, 3/2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Caso R (2013) Scientific knowledge unchained: verso una policy dell’università italiana sull’ Open Access. The Trento Law and Technology Research Group. Research Papers Series; nr. 16, May. Università degli Studi di Trento. Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, Trento. http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/4155/

  • Caso R (ed) (2008) Pubblicazioni scientifiche, diritti d’autore e Open Access. Università di Trento, Trento

    Google Scholar 

  • Caso R (ed) (2005) Ricerca scientifica pubblica, trasferimento tecnologico e proprietà intellettuale. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan L, Kirsop B (2002) Open archiving opportunities for developing countries: towards equitable distribution of global knowledge. Ariadne 30:140–142. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue30/oai-chan

  • Chan L, Kirsop B, Arunachalam S (2011) Towards open and equitable access to research and knowledge for development (n 540) 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2006) Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Id et al (eds) Open Innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew PK (1992) Faculty-Generated Inventions: who owns the Golden Egg? Wis. Law Rev. 75:259–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Chon M (2007) Substantive equality in international intellectual norm setting and interpretation. In: Gervais D (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIP plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 475–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli M, Dosi G, Maskus KE, Okediji RL, Reichman JH, Stiglitz JE (2014) Intellectual property, legal and economic challenges for development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen W et al (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or Not). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. w7522

    Google Scholar 

  • Commager HS (1963) The university and freedom. J High Educ 34(7):361–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly J (2000) The Sovietization of higher education in the Czech Lands, East Germany, and Poland during the Stalinist period (1948–54). In: Péteri G, David-Fo M (eds) Academia in Upheaval. Greenwood Publishing Group, London, p 71

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti G, Granieri M, Piccaluga A (2011) La gestione del trasferimento tecnologico. Springer, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa CM (2005) Can the TRIPS Agreement foster technology transfer to developing countries? In Maskus KE, Reichman HJ (eds) International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 227–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese B (2006) Il trasferimento di tecnologia nel diritto internazionale privato. Licenza e cessione di privative industriali e know-how. In: GRUR Int, pp 86–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki D, Grimpe C, Pellens M (2014) Access to research inputs: open science versus the Entrepreneurial University, Discussion Paper No. 14-018. ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp14018.pdf

  • Dame HG (2006) Law in the real world: improving our understanding of how law works. In : Report of The Nuffiedl inquiry on empirical legal research

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner RA (2012) Open access to legal scholarship: dropping the barriers to discourse and dialogue. JICLT 7(1):65

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res Policy 23:487–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Daughtrey WH (1991) The legal nature of academic freedom in United States colleges and universities. Richmond Law Rev 25:213–271

    Google Scholar 

  • David PA (2011) Breaking anti-commons constraints on global scientific research: some new moves in “Legal Jujitsu”. In: Uhlir PF (ed) Designing the microbial research commons, proceedings of an international symposium, Washington, p 13

    Google Scholar 

  • de Roman Perez R (2012) Acceso Abierto a Los Resultados de Investigación del Profesorado Universitario en la Ley de la Ciencia Diario La Ley, No 7986, Sección Doctrina, 18 Dic. 2012, Editorial LA LEY

    Google Scholar 

  • de Roman Perez R (2012) Acceso Abierto Acceso abierto a los resultados de investigación del profesorado universitario en la Ley de la Ciencia Diario La Ley, No 7986, Sección Doctrina, 18 Dic. 2012, Editorial LA LEY

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere C (2011) The implementation game. The TRIPS agreement and the global politics of intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dershowitz A (2005) Rights from wrongs. A secular theory of the origin of rights. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Desantes Real M (2011) Como que inventen ellos” Apuntes para un Plan de accion sobre innovacion. In: de Conto RM, Sanchez- Ramos C (eds) Propiedad Intelectual e Industrial de la obra científica, vol 4. Commercializacion de Patentes. Editorial Complutense y Editorial Comillas

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A (2005) The ‘Impact Factor’ Revisited in 2 (7) Biomedical Digital Libraries 1. http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/2/1/7

  • Dorschel J (2006) Open Access und Urheberrecht: open source in neuem Gewand? In: Hagenhoff S (ed) Internetökonomie der Medienbranche. Göttinger Schriften zur Internetforschung, Gottingen, p 235

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier T (2005) Creative commons. Science commons—Ein Paradigmenwechsel im Urheberrecht? In: Ohly B, Dreier G, Haedicke L (eds) Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts, Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker zum, vol 70. Geburtstag, pp 283–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfuss RC (2010) Does IP need IP? Accommodating intellectual production outside the intellectual property paradigm. Cardozo Law Rev 31(5):1437–1473

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfuss RC (2013), Double or nothing: technology transfer under the Bayh-Dole Act. In: Pittard M, Monotti A, Duns J (eds) Business innovation and the law: perspectives from intellectual property, labour, competition and corporate law, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfuss RC (2014) In praise of an incentive-based theory of intellectual property protection in conference paper: framing intellectual property law in the 21st century: integrating incentive, trade, development, culture and human rights. National University of Singapore, 14–15 Aug 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar BD, Willinsky J (2010) A survey of scholarly journals using open journal systems in scholarly and research communication. http://journals.sfu.ca/src/index.php/src/article/view/24/41

  • Eisenberg R, Rai A (Winter/Spring 2003) Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law Contemp Probl 66:289

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg RS (1996) Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government sponsored research. Vanderbilt Law Rev 82:1663

    Google Scholar 

  • Estreicher S, Yost KY (2014) University IP and the team production model: why change what’s not broken. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers. Paper 489. http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_plltwp/489

  • Etzkowitz and Leyedesdorff (2000) …

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H (2004) The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. Int J Technol Global 1:64–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Fecher B, Friesike S, Hebing M (2015) What drives academic data sharing? PLoS ONE 10(2):e0118053. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118053

    Google Scholar 

  • Fechner F (1999) Geistiges Eigentum und Verfassung. Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehling M (2010) Bonner Grundgesetz Kommentar, C.F. Muller Verlag, Heidelberg p 74

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink C, Maskus K (eds) (2008) Intellectual property and development: lessons from recent economic research. World Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Forero-Pineda C (2006) The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Res Policy 35(6):808–824

    Google Scholar 

  • Frosio GF (2014) Open access publishing: a literature review. CREATe working paper 2014/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud R, Kumaraswamy A, Langlois R (2002) Managing in the modular age: architectures, networks, and organizations. College of Business & Public Affairs Faculty Books. Book, vol 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerring J (2007) Case study research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais D (2009) Of cluster and assumption: innovation as part of a full TRIPS implementation. Fordham Law Rev 77:2353–2377

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna E, Nesta LJJ (2006) Research patenting and its effects. Res Policy 35:790–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg JC (2003) The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law. DePaul L Rev 52:1063

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum D (2009) Academia to industry technology transfer: an alternative to the Bayh-Dole Act system for both developed and developing nations. Fordham Intellect Property Media Entertain Law J 19:311–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg DS (2007) Science for sale: the Perils, rewards and delusions of campus capitalism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman G, Lai E (2002) International protection of intellectual property, NBER working paper no. 8704, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarda P (2013) Creation of software within the academic context: knowledge transfer, intellectual property rights and licenses. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 44(5):494–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Guédon JC (2004) The “Green” and “Gold” roads to open access: the case for mixing and matching. Serials Rev 30:315–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Guédon JC (2001) In Oldenburg’s long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific libraries (Association of Research Libraries 2001). http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/in-oldenburgs-long-shadow.pdf

  • Guibault L (2011) Owning the right to open up access to scientific publications. In: Guibault L, Angelopolous C (eds) Open content licensing from theory to practice. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Guibault L (2013) Licensing research data under open access condition. In: Beldiman D (ed) Information and knowledge, 21st century challenges in intellectual property and knowl- edge governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurry F (2013), Re-thinking the role of intellectual property, Melbourne Law School. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-wipo/en/dgo/speeches/pdf/dg_speech_melbourne_2013.pdf

  • Haberstumpf H (2001) Wem gehören Forschungsergebnisse? ZUM 819–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J, Lokshin B, Zobel A (2014) The coalignment of open innovation with environmental contingencies and its effect on innovation performance, working paper. http://www.ip.mpg.de/files/pdf3/Co-Alignment_of_Open_Innovation_With_Environmental_Contingencies.pdf

  • Hansen G (2005) Zugang zu wissenschaftlicher Information—alternative urheberrechtliche Ansätze. GRUR Int 378–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen G (2008) Warum Urheberrecht? Die Rechtfertigung des Urheberrechts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nutzerschutzes, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen G (2009) Für ein Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht für Wissenschaftler—zugleich Besprechung von Hirschfelder Marcus: Anforderungen an eine rechtliche Verankerung des Open Access Prinzips. GRUR Int 799–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable. Mandate Green Open Access. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

  • Harnad S (2010) No-fault peer review charges: the price of selectivity need not be access denied or delayed. D-Lib Mag 16(7/8). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/

  • Harnad S (2013) The Postgutenberg Open Access Journal (revised). In: Cope B, Phillips A (eds) The future of the Academic Journal, 2nd edn. 2nd edition of book Chandos. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/353991/

  • Hedeker DR, Gibbons RD (1994) A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. Biometrics 50:933–944

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerman P (1999) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. GRUR, 468–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Herb U (February 2010) Sociological implications of scientific publishing: open access, science

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbst (1965) The German Historical School in the American Scholarship. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera Diaz JR (2010) Ownership of copyright in works created in employment relationships: comparative study of the Law of Colombia, Germany and the United States of America. Revista la propriedad Immaterial 14:95–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Heussler C (2011) Information-sharing in academia and the industry: a comparative study. Res Policy 40(1):105

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty R (2006) Five lessons about copyright in the information society. J Copyright Soc USA 53:103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty R, Krujatz S, Bajon B, Frueh A, Kur A, Drexl J, Geiger C, Klass N (December 3, 2008) European Commission—Green Paper: Copyright in the knowledge economy—Comments by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-05. SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1317730 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1317730

  • Hilty R, Peukert A (eds) (2005) Interessenausgleich im Urheberrecht, Nomos Baden-Baden 2004, UFITA II S, pp 567–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz P (2007) Evaluate me!’: conflicted thoughts on gatekeeping in legal scholarship’s new age. Conn L Rev 39(1):38

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton J, Swan A (2013) Planting the green seeds for a golden harvest: comments and clarifications on “Going for Gold”. D-Lib Mag 19(1/2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarass H, Pieroth B (2014) Grundgesetz Kommentar. C.H. Beck, Munich, p 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson W (2008) “Bayh-Dole: The next 25 years”. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the United State House of Representative Committee on Science and Technology. http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/071707_johnson.pdf

  • Judson H (1996) The eight day of creation. Makers of revolution in biology. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapczynski A (2010) Access to knowledge: a conceptual genealogy. In: Krikorian G, Kapczynsky A (eds) Access to knowledge in the age of intellectual property. Zone Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Karran T (2007) Academic freedom in Europe: a preliminary comparative analysis. High Educ Policy 20:289

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman JM (2012) The Creative Rights Act of 2020, a new deal for promoting the progress of creativity, 17 April 2012. http://ssrn.com/abstract1/42135862

  • Kenney M, Patton D (2009) Reconsidering the Bay-Dole Act and the Current University invention ownership model. Res Policy 38:23

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr C (1963) The uses of the university, 5th edn. Cambridge Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman DL (2010) The commercialization of academic culture and the future of the university. In: Radder H (ed) The commodification of academic research. Science and the Modern University, Pittsburgh, p 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasser R, Schricker G (1998) Patent und Urheberrecht an Hochschulen. Nomos, Baden-Baden Kuhlen R (2013) Stellungsname del Aktionbündnisses zum Entwurf eines Dritter Gesetzes zur Aenderung Hochschulrechtlicher Vorschriften des Ministeriums fuer Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst (MWK), Baden-Wurttemberg. Stand 15.11.2013. http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/docs/stellungnahme-AB-auf-MWK-Ba-Wue.pdf

  • Krasser R, Schricker G (1998) Patent und Urheberrecht an Hochschulen, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Krujatz S (2012) Open Access: Der Offene Zugang Zu Wissenschaftlichen Informationen Und Die Okonomische Bedeutung Urheberrechtlicher Ausschlussmacht. Mohr Siebeck, Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlen R, Dewatripont M et al (2006) Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe, Final report—January, Commissioned by DG-Research, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf

  • Kulkarni SR (1995) All professors create equally: why faculty should have complete control over the intellectual property rights in their creations. Hastings L J 47:221

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek M (2013) Knowledge production in European Universities. States, Markets, and Academic Entrepreneurialism. Peterlang, Frankfurt/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Laasko M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk BC, Hedlund T (2011) The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6(6):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes WM, Posner R (2003) The economic structure of intellectual property law. Belknap Press, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee N, Westkamp G, Kur A, Ohly A (2014) Intellectual property, unfair competition and publicity. Edwar Elgar, Cheltenam

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee P (2013) Patents and the university. Duke Law J 63:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinemann F (1998) Die Sozialbindung des Geistigen Eigentums. Nomos, Baden Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley MA (August 8, 2012). Intellectual property and Shrink wrap Licenses, Stanford Public Law working paper no. 2126845. SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2126845

  • Leydesdorff L (2008) Caveat for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(2):278

    Google Scholar 

  • lichungen. Forschung & Lehre 5(11):584–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder JC at al (2003) Toward an innovation sourcing strategy. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 44(4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Litan EL, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007) Commercializing University innovations: alternative approaches. In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S (eds) Innovation policy and the economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 46

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas–Schloetter A (2008) La création salariée et le droit contractuel d auteur. Étude de droit comparé. P.i. Revista de propiedad intelectual, núm 21

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludington H (2011a) The dogs that did not bark: the silence of the legal academy during World War II. J Legal Educ 60(3):397–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludington H (2011b) The dogs that did not bark: the silence of the legal academy during World War II. J Legal Educ 60(3):397–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz A (2012) Zugang zu Wissenschaftlichen Informationen in der digitalen Welt. Goettingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Machlup F (1958) An economic review of the patent system. Subcommittee on patents, trademarks and copyrights of the Senate Commission on the Judiciary, 85th Congress, Second Sessio, Study no. 15, Washington, Vernon

    Google Scholar 

  • Maderieux L (2012) La proprietà intellettuale nelle università, Trento

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus KE (2000a) Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Institute of International Economics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus KE (2000b) Intellectual property rights in the global economy. Institute for International Economics (IIE), Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus KE, Reichman HJ (2005) International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Matkin GW (1990) Technology transfer and the University. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer SM (2003) New institutions for doing science: from databases to open source biology.http://www.epip.eu/papers/20031124/200411_conference/papers/maurer_paper.pdf

  • Merton R (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger W (2010) Profession and constitution: two definitions of academic freedom. Tex Law Rev 66:1265, 1279

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley J (2005) Social development: the developmental perspective in social welfare, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff L (1974) Norms and counternorms in a select group of Apollo moon scientists: a case study of the ambivalence of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 59:579–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Monotti A, Ricketson S (2003) Universities and intellectual property. Ownership and exploitation, vol 249.Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscati R, Regini M, Rostan M, (eds) (2010) Torri d’avorio in frantumi? Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscon V (2013a) Copyright, contratto e accesso alla conoscenza: un’analisi comparata. In: Trento Law and Technology Research Paper Series. http://www.lawtech.jus.unitn.it/index.php/research-paper-series

  • Moscon V (2013b) Misure tecnologiche di protezione (Technological proctection measures). In: Digesto civ., Agg, Utet, Torino, p 386

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscon V (2015) Academic freedom, copyright, and access to scholarly works: a comparative perspective. In: Caso R, Giovanella F (eds) (2015) Balancing Copyright Law in the Digital Age, Berlin, p 99

    Google Scholar 

  • Movery DC, Sampat BN (2001) University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925–1980. Ind Corp Change 10:781–814

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay M (1980) Interpretation and the use of rules: the case of norms in science. In: Gieryn T (ed) Science and social structure: a festschrift for Robert C. Merton. New York Academy of Science, New York, pp 111–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Musschenga A, van der Steen W, Ho V (2010) The business of drug research. In: Radder H (ed) The commodification of academic research. Science and the Modern University, Pittsburgh, p 110

    Google Scholar 

  • National research Council on the National Academies, Committee on Management of University Intellectual Property, Lessons from Generation of Experience, Research and Dialogue, Managing University Intellectual Property in the Public Interest, the National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (2001) Observation on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American Universities. J Technol Transf 26(1–2):13–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R (2005) Linkage between the market economy and the scientific commons, in Maskus KE, Reichman JH (eds) (2005) International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Netanel NW (2008) Copyright paradox. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nezu R (ed) (2007) Technology transfer, intellectual property and effective university-industry partnership. World Intellectual Property Organization, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolletti M et al (2008) Exception and limitation to copyright in Brazil: a call for reform. In: Shaver L (2008) Access to knowledge in Brazil, p 67

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013) OECD on New sources of growth: knowledge-based capital, particularly new sources of growth: knowledge- based capital: key analyses and policy conclusions—synthesis report

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly A (2014) Urheberrecht in der digitalen Welt. Brauchen wir neue Regelungen zum Urheberrecht und dessen Durchsetzung? Gutachten zum 70. Deutschen JuristenTag, Muenchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohly A, Pila J (eds) (2013) The Europeanisation of intellectual property law: towards a European legal methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer AL, Meneghini R (2007) Learning to communicate science in developing countries. Interciencia 32(9):643. http://www.interciencia.org/v32_09/643.pdf

  • Papin–Ramcharan J Dawe RA (2006) Open access publishing: a developing country view. First Monday 11(6). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1332/1252

  • Peifer N (2009) Wissenschaftsmarkt und Urheberrecht: Schranken, Vertragsrecht, Wettbewerbsrecht. GRUR 22–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Peifer N (2010) Regulatory aspects of open access. JIPITEC 3:131–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez C, Soete L (1988) Catching up in technology: entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R et al (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter Publishers, London, pp 458–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2004) Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Leher sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung. In: Dreier H (ed) Grundgesetz Kommentar, Tuebingen, p 715

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrusson U (2009) The University in the knowledge economy, lectures notes distributed on the topic of knowledge management. Chalmers University of Technology, Center of Intellectual Property Studies, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrusson U, Pamp C (2009) Intellectual property, innovation and openness. In: Arup C, Van Caenegem W (eds) Intellectual property policy reform: fostering innovation and development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenam, pp 154–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Pflüger T, Ertmann D (2004) E-Publishing und Open Access: Konsequenzen für das Urheberrecht im Hochschulbereich. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 6:436–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Pila J (2010) Who owns the intellectual property rights in academic work? Eur Intell Property Rev 609–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Pila J (2013) Professional and academic employee inventions: looking beyond the UK paradigm. In: Pittard M, Monitti A, Duns J (eds) Business innovation: a Legal Balancing Act—Perspectives from intellectual property, labour and employment, competition and corporate laws. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowar H (2013, January 10) Altmetrics: value all research products. Nature 493:159

    Google Scholar 

  • Polany M (1967) The republic of science, vol 1. Minerva 54

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramann O (2007) Publikationsklauseln in Forschungsvertra ̈gen und Forschungsprotokollen

    Google Scholar 

  • Pramann O (2007) Publikationsklauseln in Forschungsvertra ̈gen und Forschungsprotokollen

    Google Scholar 

  • Prandelli E, Sawhney M, Verona G (2008) Collaborating with customers to innovate. Conceiving and marketing products in the networking age. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest E (2012) Copyright and the Harvard open access mandate. Northwestern J Technol Intellect Prop 10:377. http://ssrn.com/abstract1/41890467

  • Radder H (ed) (2010) The commodification of academic research. Science and the Modern University, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmatian A (2014) Make the butterflies fly in formation? Manageent of copyright created by academics in UK Universities. Legal Stud 34(4):709–735

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai A (1999) Regulating scientific research: IPR and the norms of science. Northwestern Univ Sch Law Rev 94:77

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai A et al (2009) Proprietary science, open science, and the role of patent disclosure: the case of zinc finger proteins. Nat Biotechnol 27:140

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai A, Reichman J, Wiener J (2012), Intellectual property and alternatives: strategies for green innovation. In: M Cimoli et al (2012) Intellectual property rights: legal and economic challenges for development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala K, Sprigman CJ (2012) The Knockoff economy: how imitation sparks innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman JH (2009) Intellectual property in the twenty-first century: will the developing countries lead or follow? Hous Law Rev 46:1115

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman JH, Giordano Coltart J (2008) A holistic approach to patents affecting frontier science: Lessons from the seminal genomic technology studies. Paper presented to the European Patent Forum, 6–7 May 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman JH, Okediji R (2012) When copyright law and science collide: empowering digitally integrated research methods on a global scale. Minnesota Law Rev 96(4):1362

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice A (1990) Licensing the use of computer program copies and the copyright act first sale doctrine. Jurimetrics J 30:157–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Roosendaal HE, Geurts PA (1997) Forces and functions in scientific communication: an analysis of their interplay. In: Proceeding of cooperative research information system in physics (CRISP 97), Oldenburg, 91.08.1997–4.9.1997

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (1996), Uncertainty and technological change. In: Landau R et al (eds) The mosaic of economic growth, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N, Nelson R (1994) American Universities and technical progress in industry. Res Policy 23:323

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society (2011) Knowledge networks and nations. Scientific collaboration in the 21st century

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudy AP, Coppin D, Konefal J, Shaw BT, Eyck TT, Harris C, Bush L (2007) University in the age of corporate science: the UC Berkeley-Novartis controversy. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Russel RD (2008) The business of academic publishing: a strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electron J Acad Spec Librarianship. http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/

  • Sanberger G (2006) Behindert das Urheberrecht den Zugang zu wissenschaftlichen Publikationen? ZUM 818–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso A, Sellaroli V, Fabio E (2007) What constitutional protection for freedom of scientific research? J Med Ethics 33(6):342–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker G (1998) Wer ist der Verfasser? Die Autorenangabe bei wissenschaftlichen Vero ̈ffent-

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpter J (1991) The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and business cycle. Oxford University Press, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro C, Varian HL (1998) Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell S (2010) Should copyright of academic works be abolished? J Legal Anal 2(1):301

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter S, Rhoades G (2009) Academic capitalism and new economy. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (2015) 22 universities spent £9 m on open access in 2014, Jisc data reveals. In: Research professional February, 11. http://researchprofessional.com/

  • So AD, Sampat BM, Rai AK, Cook-Deegan R, Reichman JH, Weissman R, Kapczinski A (2014) Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. In: Cimoli M, Dosi G, Maskus KE, Okediji RL, Reichman JH, Stiglitz JE (eds) Intellectual property, legal and economic challenges for development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • So AD, Sampat BN, Rai AK, Cook-Deegan R, Reichman JH et al (2008) Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. PLoS Biol 6(10):262

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler G (2006) Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen von Open-Access Publikationen. Göttinger Schriften zur Internetforschung, Gottingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava P, Chandra S (2012) Technology commercialization: Indian University Perspective. J Technol Manag Innov 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242012000400010

  • Steinhauer EW (2010) Das Recht auf Sichtbarkeit, Ueberlegungen zu Open Access und Wissenschaft- sfreiheit. Mϋnster, Hagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx S (2010) Knowledge transfer from academia to industry through patenting and licensing: rethoric and reality. In: Radder H (ed) The commodification of academic research. Science and the Modern University, Pittsburgh, p 24

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz J (2008) Economic foundations of intellectual property rights. Duke Law J 57:1693

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz J (2013) Institutional Design for China’s innovation system: implication for intellectual property rights. In: Kennedy D, Stiglitz J (eds) Law and economi development with chinese characteristics: institutions for the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Strandburg K (2008) Users as innovators: implications for patent doctrine. University of Colorado Law Review 79:467–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber P (2012) Open access. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartari V, Breschi S (2012) Set them free: scientist’s evaluations of the benefits and costs of university—industry research collaboration. Ind Corp Change 21(5):1117–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursbya JG, Tursby MC (2001) Has the Bayh-Dole Act compromised basic reseacrh? Res Policy 40:1077–1083

    Google Scholar 

  • Torremans PLC (2008) Copyright (and other intellectual property rights) as a human right. In: Torremans PLC (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, p 197

    Google Scholar 

  • Towse R (2001) Creativity, incentive and reward. An economic anlalysis of copyright and culture in the information age. J Cult Econ 28(2):157–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner GRG (1988) The price of freedom. In: Tight M (ed) Academic freedom and responsibility. Open University Press, Stony Stratford, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrici B (2008) Vermo ̈gensrechtliche Grundfragen des Arbeitnehmerurheberrechts. Mohr universities. Richmond Law Rev 25:213–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallas SP, Kleinman DL (2008) Contradiction, convergence, and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Econ Rev 6(2):283–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy B, Ranga M, Callaert J, Debackere K, Zimmermann E (2004) Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Res Policy 33(3):425–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderbeeken R, Le Roy F, Stalpaert C, Aerts D (eds) (2012) Drunk on capitalism. An interdisciplinary reflection on market, economy, art and science, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessuri H, Guedòn GC, Cetto AM (2013, December 4) Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Curr Sociol

    Google Scholar 

  • von Lewinski S, Thum D (2011) Spezifisce Fragen zum Auslandsbezug des geplanten Zweitveroeffentlichunggsrechts nach § 38 Abs. 1 S. 3 and 4 UrhG neu. IUWIS. http://www.iuwis.de/publikation/spezifische-fragen-zum-auslandsbezug-des-geplanten-zweitver%C3%B6ffentlichungsrechts-nach-%C2%A7-3

  • Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C (2007) Where excludability matters: material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Res Policy 36(8):1184

    Google Scholar 

  • Washbourn J (2005) University Inc. The corporare corruption of higher education. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill SR (2006) European private law and the constitutional dimension. In: Cafaggi F (ed) The institutional framework of european private law (Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, vol XV/2). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill SR, Vogenauer S (eds) (2006) The Harmonisation of European contract law: implications for European private laws. Business and Legal Practice, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • West J (2006) Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation? In: Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (eds) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 109–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky J (2009) The Stratified economics of open access. Econ Anal Policy 39(1):53–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff E (2013) Private assets, public mission: the politics of technology transfer and The American University. Jurimetrics 54:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandtke A, Bullinger W (2014) Praxiskommentar zum Urheberrecht, IV edn. § 43 Urheber in Arbeits- oder Dienstverhaeltnissen. C.H. Beck, Munich, p 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu PK (2009) The objectives and principles of the TRIPS agreement. Houston Law Rev 46:979–1046

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Post-doctoral Research Fellow in Private Comparative Law, Law and Technology Research Group, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Valentina Moscon

Authors
  1. Valentina Moscon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Moscon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Trento, Trento, Trento, Italy

    Giuseppe Bellantuono

  2. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Faculdade de Direito, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Fabiano Teodoro Lara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moscon, V. (2016). University Knowledge Transfer: From Fundamental Rights to Open Access Within International Law. In: Bellantuono, G., Lara, F. (eds) Law, Development and Innovation. SxI - Springer for Innovation / SxI - Springer per l'Innovazione, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13311-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13311-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13310-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13311-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation