nies in the hope of generating wealth. In November,
1988, a USPTO spokesperson revealed that inventors
had filed for 650 patents for high-temperature su-
perconductivity inventions. Foreign inventors had
applied for 225 of those 650 patents, including 150
Japanese applications.
Institutional Inventions Profits stimulated new in-
vention strategies in the 1980’s, as entrepreneurs
recognized the commercial value of patenting and
licensing inventions. University, industrial, and gov-
ernment employers urged their researchers to
pursue invention, so both researchers and their in-
stitutions could earn royalty income by licensing
products to companies. Although researchers usu-
ally received credit for their inventions, their insti-
tutions often retained ownership of the resulting
patents. Those institutions hired legal counsel to
protect intellectual property rights and investment
bankers to accrue more profits.
In the 1980’s, the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology (MIT) opened a technology licensing office
to commercialize patents for inventions developed
by university researchers. By 1986, MIT patent royal-
ties averaged $2 million annually, primarily resulting
from computer magnetic-core memory and synthetic
penicillin. Because the university had rarely licensed
inventions before, John Preston, the licensing office
director, focused on licensing and marketing inven-
tions in addition to filing patents. In 1987, MIT
earned $3.1 million from over one hundred licensed
inventions, including superconductors and software
designed for artificial intelligence. MIT’s annual li-
censing revenues were fourth in the nation behind
Stanford University’s $6.1 million, the University of
California’s $5.4 million, and the University of Wis-
consin’s $5 million.
Collegiate research and development intensified
the competition between rival inventors. Several re-
searchers and industries vied for the rights to the
superconducting material yttrium barium copper
oxide. Former University of Houston colleagues
Paul Chu and H. K. Wu each claimed to have been
the first to describe that material in a paper they
authored. Researchers at the Naval Research Labo-
ratory, American Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany, and IBM also claimed to have been the first
to identify the material. USPTO representatives
alerted MIT researchers who had formed the Ameri-
can Superconductor Corporation of the material’s
patent status, realizing that their forthcoming pat-
ent for a technique to make wiring using yttrium bar-
ium copper oxide might be challenged.
Professors realized that if their work generated
substantial income, they might receive more funds
for future research, and many researchers diverted
focus on pure science to innovate applications of
existing inventions. Industries gave several hundred
million dollars to universities for research, includ-
ing $37 million to MIT in 1987. Some academic
researchers established companies to manufacture
and sell outstanding inventions considered commer-
cially promising, with the MIT technology licensing
office owning percentages of those companies. A
1980 federal law stated that universities owned out-
right intellectual property they developed with fed-
eral funds. Researchers recognized that a variety
of fields, including biology and electronics, influ-
enced the invention process. Schools encouraged
researchers to pursue electronic, biomedical, and
genetic inventions, as exemplified by the Biolistics
gene gun, created by Cornell University researchers
in 1983 to insert genetic information in cells quickly,
which was leased to bioengineering companies.Inventive Culture Inventors secured grants from
states and other sources. During the 1980’s, the Ha-
waii Invention Development Loan Program, recog-
nizing the potential benefits to the state economy
that would result, donated to public libraries books
and other sources of information explaining the
theory and practice of patenting and marketing in-
ventions. A state committee reviewed inventors’ ap-
plications to approve loans of up to $50,000. Other
states implemented similar incentives.
During the 1980’s, many inventors sought cama-
raderie in such professional organizations as the
American Society of Inventors, the National Society
of Inventors, the Society of American Inventors, In-
ventor’s Workshop International, and regional, state,
and Canadian inventing groups. They read journals,
such asAmerican InventorandThe Lightbulb, distrib-
uted by those groups and other publishers. Exposi-
tions displayed new inventions. Starting in 1982,
Valérie-Anne d’Estaing Giscard compiled yearly edi-
tions of invention almanacs in France, releasing the
first U.S. volume ofThe World Almanac Book of Inven-
tionsin 1985 and holding an invention contest for
readers. Schools and companies sponsored inven-
tion competitions and fairs for children. The Na-526 Inventions The Eighties in America