Patenting and Academic Research: Historical Case Studies

In the early part of the 20th century, academic researchers rarely patented their results. There was widespread fear that the effects of patenting would commercialize the academic environment, corrupt the traditional nature of the university, and impinge on the public's trust and support of university researchers. By the 1920s, however, hard-line opposition to patenting among academic scientists was beginning to be modified in favor of a more flexible approach. It was no longer sufficient to harp on the oft-recounted ill effects of patenting: altering allegiances and aims, skewing research, dampening the incentive for information exchange among colleagues, generating professional and financial jealousies, or focusing creative energies on profit rather than research. Proponents argued that there were other factors to be considered. In their view, patenting was an efficient way to translate knowledge and processes into useful products. It provided the means not just to exercise a financial monopoly but also to control the quality of products and so protect the public from exploitation. They argued that