"... In PAGE 4: ... Table2 shows that many libraries in CEE countries have been exposed to licensing. Licensing consortia are becoming more and more common in CEE countries.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ... ** the amounts of libraries using electronic databases refers mainly to free-of-charge electronic databases. Table2 : Licensing agreements CD-ROMs amp; multimedia works Electronic full-text journals Electronic bibliographic databases Do single libraries make licensing agreements conc . This material? Acad.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ... In fact, ITN lists more than 60 licensees on its website. (See Figure 3 and Table3 .) An even bigger play of this sort for ITN is its recent agreement with SAP, which will license the ITN booking engine, making it a part of the SAP enterprise resource planning system (ERP) software (McNulty, 1999a).... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... Microsoft, on the other hand, is licensing the Windows Media DRM to any one willing to sign the license agreement. Table1 presents the results of our technology evaluation. The used set of criteria (as presented in section 4) is listed on the left while the evaluated technologies are represented as columns.... ..."

"... In PAGE 14: ... As the data in Figure 2 suggest, increased invention reports generate increased patenting activity with a slight lag. As Figure 3 and the comparative data in Table2 indicate, Columbia University apos;s technology licensing activities have been associated with a surge in gross licensing revenues, which grew almost 60-fold (measured in 1992 dollars) in the decade between 1985 and 1995. This income was highly concentrated among a small number of inventions: the quot;top 5 quot; accounted for more than 90% of gross revenues throughout this period.... In PAGE 14: ... Turning to the number of licenses (a measure that heavily weights inventions licensed on a nonexclusive basis), Figure 4 illustrates the growth in importance (in terms of numbers) of licenses for software inventions, which account for well over 50% of Columbia licensing agreements after 1988; the majority of these licenses, however (420 of a total of 648), are associated with one software invention. 6 Nevertheless, biomedical inventions accounted for a large and growing share of the revenues of the quot;top 5 quot; inventions throughout the period covered by these data ( Table2 ). In 1985, 1990, and 1995, respectively, 5, 4, and 3 of the top 5 money-earning disclosures were biomedical, which throughout the 1985-95 period accounted for more than 80% of the income earned by the quot;top 5 quot; inventions.... In PAGE 19: ... The apparent effects of Bayh-Dole on UC invention disclosures, patenting, and licensing are confounded with those of shifts in the underlying research agenda, as biomedical research funding and scientific advances grew rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s. Additional evidence on the shifting composition of the University of California technology licensing portfolio is displayed in Table2 . The UC data in Table 2 reveal the high concentration of licensing revenues among a small number of inventions throughout the pre-Bayh Dole period, as well as indicating remarkable growth (more than 50-fold) in constant-dollar gross revenues during 1970-95.... In PAGE 22: ... FIGURES 8-12 HERE The data in Figure 12 suggest that similarly to the UC system, biomedical inventions increased somewhat as a share of Stanford apos;s (non-software) licenses during the 1975-90 period, although the upward trend is less pronounced and fluctuates more widely than in the UC data.13 Table2 indicates that as of fiscal 1980, slightly more than 40% of the income from Stanford apos;s quot;top 5 quot; inventions was attributable to biomedical inventions, suggesting the considerable importance of these inventions prior to Bayh-Dole. This share increases to more than 96% by fiscal 1995.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... Then the item can be used: - Freely, in the public domain - With a data sharing agreement or license - With a service fee for use (by industry) to help maintain the data The attributes of lifetime (time period artifact be used), area (projects artifact can be used with), transfer to a 3rd party and derivative (ownership of any derived artifact) are all related to the permissions property. Table1 defines the set of proposed attributes. ... In PAGE 8: ... Attributes of a data sharing agreement The previous section has developed a proposed set of attributes that can form the basis of a data sharing agreement for empirical software engineering artifacts. Table1 collects these together, and defines the attributes and their values and indicates which of the above properties they address. From these attributes, a software agreement can be written for any artifact, which defines the protocols required by both developer and user of that artifact.... In PAGE 10: ... While this structure may not have achieved the ultimate set of properties necessary for an artifact-sharing agreement, the authors believe that it provides a good basis, that should help foster empirical software engineering research using a set of universally available artifacts. If you, the reader, have a data set or know of one, can you specify its use via the attributes of Table1 ? If so, let us know your experiences with it. The hope is that this paper will stimulate discussion within the research community, so that a more comprehensive protocol for using artifacts and empirical data can eventually be established within this community.... ..."

"... In PAGE 6: ... Then the item can be used: - Freely, in the public domain - With a data sharing agreement or license - With a service fee for use (by industry) to help maintain the data The attributes of lifetime (time period artifact can be used), area (projects artifact can be used with), transfer to a 3rd party and derivative (ownership of any derived artifact) are all related to the permissions property. Table1 defines the set of proposed attributes. ... In PAGE 8: ... Attributes of a data sharing agreement The previous section has developed a proposed set of attributes that can form the basis of a data sharing agreement for empirical software engineering artifacts. Table1 collects these together, and defines the attributes with their options and indicates which of the above properties they address. From these attributes, a software agreement, using one or more options for each attribute, can be written for any artifact, which defines the protocols required by both developer and user of that artifact.... In PAGE 10: ... While this structure may not have achieved the ultimate set of properties necessary for an artifact-sharing agreement, the authors believe that it provides a good basis, that should help foster empirical software engineering research using a set of universally available artifacts. If you, the reader, have a data set or know of one, can you specify its use via the attributes of Table1 ? If so, let us know your experiences with it2. The hope is that this paper will stimulate discussion within the research community, so that a more comprehensive protocol for using artifacts and empirical data can eventually be established within this community.... ..."

"... In PAGE 24: ...24 In addition to comparing the periods before and after Bayh-Dole for two of these three universities, we compared the disclosure, patenting, and licensing activities across all three universities for the 1986-90 period to assess the similarities and differences among them well after the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act.15 The data in the top panel of Table3 suggest considerable similarity among these three universities in the characteristics of their invention disclosures: roughly one-fifth of 1986-90 inventions were patented at all three universities within six years of their disclosure. A larger share of Stanford University apos;s disclosures, however, are licensed and a larger fraction of Stanford apos;s invention disclosures yield positive licensing income than is true of either Columbia or the University of California.... In PAGE 24: ...16 The fraction of licenses that yield positive income, however, differs less dramatically among these three universities, keeping in mind that our licensing data for Stanford may omit a number of software licenses. TABLE 3 HERE Restricting the focus to biomedical inventions does little to change the conclusions of this comparison among our three universities (the second panel of Table3 ). The share of biomedical inventions resulting in issued patents within six years is remarkably similar across these three institutions, and Stanford once again displays a higher fraction of disclosures that are licensed and a higher fraction of disclosures resulting in licensing agreements that yield revenues.... ..."

"... In PAGE 7: ... While over 100 public services were surveyed and documented by the authors [9], only 31 of them were analyzed in depth as a basis for domain analysis and framework development. Specifically, 25 licensing services ( Table1 ) and 6 social welfare services (Table 2) delivered by the Government to business entities and citizens were studied. Both licensing and welfare services can be classified as GEA Authorization Services.... ..."