ABSTRACT
Nanotechnology commercialization embodies the paradigm of the
transfer of innovation from research institutions. So far, it has been
mentioned how critical is the role of universities in the development
of nanotechnologies [1, 2]. Kesan [3], in his recent study on the
information submitted from 1996 to 2003 by 94 US universities
to the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM),
concludes that the most frequent practice consists of licensing out
universities’ inventions for recouping the legal expenses incurred
for patenting activities, and, more, in general, pursuing a revenue-
centric approach. He then concludes that universities should
rather think of following different routes like actively pursuing
commercialization activities, adopt an open collaboration scheme,
and adopt royalty-free licensing (for a detailed analysis of nanotech-
nology’s potential and technology transfer strategies in Finland,
see Ref. [2]). Bastani et al. [4], for example, advocate the great
importance of universities in nanotechnology development, and,
consequently, of effective technology transfer initiatives, and suggest
alternative ways to collaborate by fostering the industry-academia
relationship, like the negotiation of partnership agreements right
after the publication of invention disclosures. In fact, in this field,
companies may realize that a solution to a technical problem and its
industrialization may need further refinement and research, which
can be done in parallel with the relevant university. Stewart [5]
argues that there is a difference between biotech ventures and
nanotechnology ones and suggests some alternative ways to license
and commercialize nanotech-based innovations from the university
setting. He advocates the value of nanotechnology as a platform
technology and argues that university spin-offs should focus on one
application and exclude the others, at least at the beginning of the
development.
