Does technology transfer from the US to China harm American firms, workers, and consumers? A historical and analytic investigation

Author(s):  
Victor Menaldo ◽  
Nicolas Wittstock
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 743-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Ya Qin

Abstract Forced technology transfer has emerged from the US–China trade war as a new issue of systemic importance. The USA, the European Union, and Japan have jointly condemned forced technology transfer as a practice undermining the proper function of international trade and called for new WTO rules to discipline the practice. This article examines the issue in the broad context of international economic law. It seeks to address the following questions: What does ‘forced technology transfer’ mean? Where did this practice come from? Why is there insufficient international regulation on the issue? What exactly are the problems inherent in such practice? And what can be done to improve the relevant international regulation?


1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Crawford

This article provides a summary of the current policies and objectives of the US National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO) in relation to technology transfer activities. NOAO, as one of the world's major astronomical facilities, is engaged in research and development in many areas of frontier technology. It now sees as a significant objective the development of increased interaction with outside organizations to add value, through technology transfer, to its federally funded research and technology efforts.


2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (05) ◽  
pp. 1069-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER LINDELÖF

This paper identifies differences in institutional contexts (legislation) between Sweden and the UK and their effects on technology transfer policies. It then proceeds to examine how such activities are organized by universities. Empirical evidence from surveys conducted with technology transfer managers at eight Swedish universities and eleven UK universities gathered in Sweden and the UK during 2004 is analyzed. It is argued that the historical developments of these systems depend on different institutional contexts, which influence the modes of organization. The UK technology transfer system is based on similar legislation to that of the US, with IPRs being granted to the universities. The Swedish system, however, grants IPRs to the individual researchers, though with some new features — such as science parks and incubators — suggesting a change towards greater agent (university) involvement in encouraging technology transfer. This change indicates a breakthrough for the "entrepreneurial university" in Sweden.


2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred R. Berkeley

This article is an edited version of a speech given by Alfred R. Berkeley, former President and Vice-Chairman of the NASDAQ Stock Market Inc, as part of the 30th anniversary celebrations of the US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) during the 2004 AUTM Annual MeetingSM. The article stresses the increasingly important role of technology transfer in the economic and social futures of the USA and points up lessons for technology transfer professionals from the key changes and policy decisions that have driven the development of America's capital markets over the past few decades.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-455
Author(s):  
Yan Wang

AbstractThis article illustrates the power of discourse in free trade agreement (FTA) negotiation, elucidating the concept from the perspective of a country’s abilities of rule control, rule assimilation and rule contestation. To enhance rule control, the G2 (the US and EU) have chosen their FTA partners, designed the FTA rules, and offered offensive-defensive exchange strategically. They have approached weak or trade-dependent parties first in FTA negotiation, innovated new rules to accelerate FTA negotiation, skillfully constructed intentional ambiguity and exemptions to remove rule discrepancies and made offensive-defensive exchange with their negotiating parties. Some of these strategies have been copied by China although in a different way. Further, a template approach for negotiating an FTA and exporting domestic laws and normative values to others contributes to the G2’s rule assimilation. A de facto FTA template has also been established by China recently, but its legal culture and political stance have led it to sign incomplete contracts and tolerate rule differences with its negotiating parties instead of transposition of domestic law. In facing the rival rules adopted by their competitors, the G2 have incorporated counteractive rules in their FTAs with their competitors’ close trading nations. China has also contested rules treating China as a non-market economy in its FTAs, but its stance toward state-owned enterprises (SOE) disciplines and rules forbidding forced technology transfer is milder due to its lack of experience in dealing with unfavourable rules.


Author(s):  
Francesco Lissoni

This chapter summarizes the results of the project titled Academic Patenting in Europe (APE-INV). The key aims of the project are the creation and diffusion of a harmonized database on academic patenting in Europe. The database allows for the investigation of the economic returns of academic patenting at the scientist, university, and industry level. It also helps to investigate the extent of synergies and trade-offs between patenting and other technology transfer means such as consultancy, mobility of personnel, as well as teaching, conferencing, and publishing. Finally, it provides the basis for the creation of a larger database on inventors in Europe, to be used in studies on knowledge diffusion and labour mobility. The basic evidence from the database is opposed to the view that the European universities are lagging behind the US in terms of universities’ contribution to patenting. The bulk of academic patents remained in the hands of the companies having strong ties with academic scientists. The European policies mainly addressed the narrow issue of technology transfer and patent ownership, and were not strong enough to change the fundamentals of the research systems.


2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 84-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thien Tran ◽  
Tugrul Daim ◽  
Dundar Kocaoglu
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document