Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Faculty Intellectual Property Rights in Canadian Universities Cover

Faculty Intellectual Property Rights in Canadian Universities

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
Volume 5 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012)
By:   
Open Access
|Feb 2013
References

References

  1. 1. Apple, Kirsten S. “Evaluating university technology transfer offices”: 139-157. In: Zoltan J. Acs and Roger Stough, eds.. New York: Springer, 2008.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. 2. Bouchie, Aaron. “Survey reveals US university licensing up, startup formation down.”(2005) // http://www.nature.com/bioent/bioenews/012005/full/bioent843.html (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. 3. Canada Statistics. “Patent or perish? Universities are more inventive than ever.”1(1) (1999) // http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/88-003-x/88-003-x1999001-eng.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. 4. Canadian Association of University Teachers. “Intellectual Property & Academic Staff Legal Review (Parts 1-3).” (Ottawa, 2003-2004) // http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=217 (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. 5. Canadian Association of University Teachers. “Responding to the Intellectual Property Commercialization Challenges Report.” (Ottawa, 2006) // http://www.caut.ca/uploads/ipcon_comm_workshop.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. 6. Doloreux, David. “Regional innovation systems in Canada: a comparative study.”38 (2004): 481-494.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. 7. Flick, Uve.. 4th ed. Berlin: Sage Publications Ltd, 2009.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. 8. Hoye, Katherine A.. Ph.D. dissertation. Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 2006.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. 9. Jensen A., Richard, Jerry G. Thursby, and Marie C. Thursby. “The Disclosure and Licensing of University Inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with’.” (2003) // http://www.nd.edu/~rjensen1/research/Disclosure.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. 10. Karjala, Dennis S., and Mindaugas Kiškis. “Intellectual property rights within the university.”No. 1(9) (2011): 65-84.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. 11. Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. “Does Inventor Ownership Encourage University Research-Derived Entrepreneurship? A Six University Comparison.” (May 2011) // http://ssrn.com/abstract=1847184 (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. 12. Kiškis, Mindaugas. “Understanding Canadian Innovation System.”Vol. 75, No. 1 (2012): 92-99.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. 13. Lach, Saul, and Mark Schankerman. “Incentives and invention in universities.”9727 // http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9727.html (accessed October 1, 2012)
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. 14. LaRoche, Kevin, Christine Collard, and Jacqueline Chernys. “Appropriating innovation: The enforceability of university intellectual property policies.”20(2) (2007): 135-175 // http://www.danielnelson.ca/pdfs/20_IPJ-CAN_135_4-9-09_2122.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012)
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. 15. Lissoni, Francesco, and Fabio Montobbio. “Inventorship and authorship in patent-publication pairs: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit.”No. 224 (2008) // http://www.francescolissoni.com/prova_g000019.pdf (accessed October 1, 2012)
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. 16. Mizaras, Vytautas.. 2 tomas. Justitia, 2009.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. 17. Monotti, Ann L., and Sam Ricketson.. Oxford University Press, 2003.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. 18. Neuman W., Lawrence.. 10th ed. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2009.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. 19. Polster, Claire. “The University Has No Business in the Intellectual Property Business.”Vol. 46, No. 7 (September 1999) // http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=2740 (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. 20. Salazar, Monica, and Adam Holbrook. “Canadian science, technology and innovation policy: the product of regional networking?”41 (2007): 1129-1141.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. 21. Silverman, Ed. “The Trouble With Tech Transfer.”(January 1, 2007) // http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24640 (accessed October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. 22. STIC-CSTI. “State of the Nation 2010 - Canada's Science, Technology and Innovation System” // http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/h_00038.html(accessed on October 1, 2012).
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. 23. Turk L., James, ed.. Toronto: ACPPU & James Lorimer, 2000.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. 24. Vaver, David.. 2nd ed. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. 25. Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. “The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.”316 (5827) (2007): 1036 - 1039.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10076-012-0012-0 | Journal eISSN: 2029-0454
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 81 - 108
Published on: Feb 8, 2013
Published by: Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Canada universities,
intellectual property,
faculty intellectual property rights,
technology transfer
Related subjects:
Law,
Law, other,
Social sciences,
Political science,
Political science, other

© 2013 Mindaugas Kiškis, published by Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Volume 5 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012)
Previous article
Next article