Table 9.2

From Yochai Benkler - Wealth of Networks
Revision as of 10:41, 18 January 2007 by <bdi>Imres</bdi> (talk | contribs) (loading table)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Table 9.2: Selected University Gross Revenues and Patent Licensing Revenues



Total

Licensing and Royalties

Government Grants & Contracts


Revenues




(millions $)

 (millions $)

 % of total

 (millions $)

 % of total


All universities

$227,000

$1,270

0.56%

 $31,430

13.85%

Columbia University

$2,074

$178.4
$100-120a

8.6%
4.9-5.9%

$532

25.65%

University of California

$14,166

$81.3
$55 (net)b

0.57%
0.39%

$2,372

16.74%

Stanford University

$3,475

$43.3
$36.8c

1.25%
1.06%

$860

24.75%

Florida State

$2,646

$35.6

1.35%

$238

8.99%

University of Wisconsin-Madison

$1,696

$32

1.89%

$417.4

24.61%

University of Minnesota

$1,237

$38.7

3.12%

$323.5

26.15%

Harvard

$2,473

$47.9

1.94%

$416
$548.7d

16.82%
22.19%

Cal Tech

$531

$26.7e
$15.7f

5.02%
2.95%

$268

50.47%


Sources: Aggregate revenues: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2001, and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2001 (2003), Table F; Association of University Technology Management, Annual Survey Summary FY 2002 (AUTM 2003), Table S-12. Individual institutions: publicly available annual reports of each university and/or its technology transfer office for FY 2003.

Notes:

  1. Large ambiguity results because technology transfer office reports increased revenues for year-end 2003 as $178M without reporting expenses; University Annual Report reports licensing revenue with all "revenue from other educational and research activities," and reports a 10 percent decline in this category, "reflecting an anticipated decline in royalty and license income" from the $133M for the previous year-end, 2002. The table reflects an assumed net contribution to university revenues between $100-120M (the entire decline in the category due to royalty/royalties decreased proportionately with the category).
  2. University of California Annual Report of the Office of Technology Transfer is more transparent than most in providing expenses-both net legal expenses and tech transfer direct operating expenses, which allows a clear separation of net revenues from technology transfer activities.
  3. Minus direct expenses, not including expenses for unlicensed inventions.
  4. Federal- and nonfederal-sponsored research.
  5. Almost half of this amount is in income from a single Initial Public Offering, and therefore does not represent a recurring source of licensing revenue.
  6. Technology transfer gross revenue minus the one-time event of an initial public offering of LiquidMetal Technologies.