A failed encounter between science and business: On the commercialization research results
Journal cover Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, volume 87, no. 4, year 2025
PDF (Język Polski)

Keywords

commercialization
professor’s privilege
results of research

How to Cite

Szczepanowska-Kozłowska, K. (2025). A failed encounter between science and business: On the commercialization research results. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny I Socjologiczny, 87(4), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2025.87.4.06

Number of views: 0


Number of downloads: 6

Abstract

The article discusses the concept of the commercialization of the results of scientific activities, as contained in the Polish Law on Higher Education and Science. The aim of the article is to identify the legal barriers to the dissemination of knowledge created at public universities to the socio-economic environment. Although the law clearly prefers the model under which public universities acquire the rights to intangible assets created by their employees as a result of scientific activities, and consequently their commercialization (both direct and indirect), it does not exclude situations where the results of scientific activities belong to their creators. The law certainly reflects certain efforts by the Polish legislator, fitting into the discussion about the need and models for disseminating knowledge created by universities, which is considered a desirable phenomenon that serves social and economic development. However, the final assessment of the model and the provisions contained in this law is negative. The lack of consistency with the legal norms contained in acts such as the Industrial Property Law or the Copyright and Related Rights Act, the ill-considered solutions, and the poorly written provisions, create barriers rather than facilitate the dissemination of knowledge created at public universities. Although the solutions contained in the Law on Higher Education and Science are undoubtedly the result of the Polish legislator’s search for an effective model for disseminating knowledge, there is no doubt that it requires changes. The article uses the dogmatic-legal method to analyse the provisions of binding law.

https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2025.87.4.06
PDF (Język Polski)

References

Carayol, N., i Sterzi, V. (2021). The transfer and value of academic inventions when the TTO is one option. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 30(2), 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12411

Chlebny, J. (2015). Prawa do wyników badań naukowych i prac rozwojowych dokonanych przez pracownika oraz zasady ich komercjalizacji w świetle ustawy Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym. W: A. Adamczak (red.), Wynalazczość i ochrona własności intelektualnej, 39, s. 29–41.

Czarny-Drożdżejko, E. (2016). Wybrane zagadnienia z prawa autorskiego w prawie o szkolnictwie wyższym. Przegląd Sądowy, 9, 88–109.

Czub, K. (2021). Przedmiot komercjalizacji pracowniczej własności intelektualnej w publicznych szkołach wyższych pod rządem nowego prawa o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce. Państwo i Prawo, 76(2), 88–107.

Kenney, M., i Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.07.007

Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information, 34(3), 197–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2012.03.002

Meyer, M. S., i Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70(2), 415–440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0210-9

Salamonowicz, M. (2016). Prawna regulacja komercjalizacji własności intelektualnej publicznych szkół wyższych. Wolters Kluwer.

Weckowska, D. M., Mollas-Galard, J., Tang, P., Twigg, D., Castro-Martinez, E., Kijeńska-Dąbrowska, I., Libaers, D., Debackere, K., i Meyer, M. (2015). University patenting and technology commercialization – Legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R&D Management, 48(1), 88–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12123