Most tech transfer offices are not profitable

The exceptions are your usual suspects - MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley.
Does more valuable research actually happen on the coasts or are there just better commercialization mechanisms there?

Even MIT only does $34M in licensing revenue revenue (in contrast to companies founded by MIT grads doing$1.9T in revenue) - this contrast backs up the fact that It is hard to capture value from research and Current value capture mechanisms are crude.

In 2010 Stanford did $65.1M in licensing revenue. Over four decades it got $1.1B, with half of that just from Google and Recombinant DNA.

Gatorade earned University of Florida $80 million since 1973.

Some explanations for this:

See Katie Saund Email 20/2/2019 - (a) at the global TT summit earlier this year, only 2 of the top 30 TT professionals at the meeting said generating revenue was a goal of the TT office but 30/30 said economic development was a goal and (b) I talked with the director at NC State’s TT office which is entirely self funded — they keep all IP revenue. They seem to have just enough money for staff and overhead, but not enough for innovative programs because they needed to get grant funding for those in the last couple years. This is just crazy to me— that’s so little revenue coming into the university!


Web URL for this note

Comment on this note