|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
160,287 |
13 |
0.81 |
16.03 |
0.810979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
416,594 |
49 |
1.18 |
41.66 |
1.176188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
376,098 |
14 |
0.37 |
37.6 |
0.37234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
217,064 |
10 |
0.46 |
21.7 |
0.460829 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
428,122 |
36 |
0.84 |
42.81 |
0.840925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
399,411 |
25 |
0.63 |
39.94 |
0.625939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
242,100 |
7 |
0.29 |
24.21 |
0.289137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
445,300 |
48 |
1.08 |
44.53 |
1.077925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
432,400 |
30 |
0.70 |
43.24 |
0.693802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
285,000 |
9 |
0.32 |
28.5 |
0.315789 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
503,000 |
43 |
0.85 |
50.3 |
0.854871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
483,000 |
28 |
0.58 |
48.3 |
0.57971 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
324,000 |
8 |
0.25 |
32.4 |
0.246914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
558,000 |
48 |
0.86 |
55.8 |
0.860215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
524,000 |
24 |
0.46 |
52.4 |
0.458015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
348,000 |
10 |
0.29 |
34.8 |
0.287356 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
571,000 |
46 |
0.81 |
57.1 |
0.805604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
568,000 |
15 |
0.26 |
56.8 |
0.264085 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Avg. |
42,832,000 |
2859 |
0.67 |
4283.2 |
0.667492 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to Neighboring
States in 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
R&D |
Patents |
Pat per R&D |
|
C/E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
353,000 |
14 |
0.40 |
35.3 |
0.396601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
590,000 |
29 |
0.49 |
59.0 |
0.491525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
580,000 |
16 |
0.28 |
58.0 |
0.275862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Avg. |
44,888,000 |
3,255 |
0.73 |
4488.8 |
0.725138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi University Patents per $10M R&D Expenditure Compared to
Neighboring States |
|
|
|
|
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
|
|
|
|
Mississippi |
0.81 |
0.46 |
0.29 |
0.32 |
0.25 |
0.29 |
0.40 |
|
|
|
|
Alabama |
1.18 |
0.84 |
1.08 |
0.85 |
0.86 |
0.81 |
0.49 |
|
|
|
|
Louisiana |
0.37 |
0.63 |
0.7 |
0.58 |
0.46 |
0.26 |
0.28 |
|
|
|
|
National Avg. |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
0.67 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOURCES: |
Data were derived from National Science Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics (NSF/SRS), |
|
|
Survey of Industrial Research and Development, 2005; NSF/SRS, Survey of
Research and Development |
|
|
|
Expenditures at Universities and Colleges: FY 2005; and NSF/SRS, Survey
of Federal Funds for Research and |
|
|
Development: FY 2005-2007. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Information
Products Division, Technology Assessment and Forecast (TAF) Branch
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/asgstc/regions.htm
1. Choose
State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. State-level university R&D data have not been adjusted to eliminate
double counting of funds passed through from one |
|
academic institution to another. At the national level, funds passed
through to educational subrecipients account for |
|
|
3.3% of total R&D expenditures reported by universities and colleges in
FY2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. R&D intensity is ratio of total R&D performed in a state to its
GDP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Nonfederal sources of R&D expenditures reported by FFRDCs in FY2005
included state and local governments |
|
|
($32 million), industry ($129 million), FFRDC institutional funds ($60
million), and other sources ($136 million). |
|
|
4. Industry sources of industry R&D expenditures include all nonfederal
sources of industry R&D expenditures. |
|
|
5. Sum of state totals differ from U.S. sector totals for four reasons:
some R&D expenditures cannot be allocated to 1 of 50 |
|
states or District of Columbia; nonfederal sources of other nonprofit
R&D expenditures could not be allocated by state; |
|
|
state-level U&C data have not been adjusted to eliminate double counting
of funds passed through from one academic |
|
|
institution to another; and state-level R&D data are not converted from
fiscal years to calendar years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|