National Economic Impacts from 

DoD License Agreements with 

U.S. Industry

2000-2011

Submitted by:

TechLink

2310 University Way, Bldg. 2-2

Bozeman, Montana 59715

Bureau of Business and

Economic Research

The University of Montana

Missoula, Montana 59812
CONTENTS

3 Purpose of Study

3 Research Team

4 Methodology

8 Results

15 Summary

16 Appendices

National Economic Impacts

from DoD License Agreements 

with U.S. Industry

2000-2011

TechLink and Bureau of Business and Economic Research
PURPOSE OF STUDY 

U.S government agencies have a federal legislative 

mandate to transfer their inventions to the private sector 

for conversion into new products and services to benefit the 

nation’s economy.1 This study was undertaken to estimate the 

contribution to the national economy of license agreements 

transferring Department of Defense (DoD) inventions to 

industry. The study’s purpose was to determine the extent 

to which these license agreements have (1) contributed to 

new economic activity and job creation in the United States, 

and (2) resulted in the transition of new technology to U.S. 

military use. The period covered by the study was 2000-

2011. This study was commissioned by the Air Force, in 

cooperation with the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The study was undertaken in two major phases. First, 

the research team contacted all companies having active 

license agreements with DoD during the 2000-2011 period. 

Companies were asked to divulge the total sales of new 

products and services directly related to their DoD license 

agreements. Second, the research team used IMPLAN 

economic-impact assessment software to estimate the total 

economic impacts related to these sales. Impacts analyzed 

included economic output, value added, employment, labor 

income, and tax revenues. 

RESEARCH TEAM 

This economic-impact study was conducted by 

TechLink, a federally funded technology transfer center at 

Montana State University, Bozeman, in collaboration with 

the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) 

at the University of Montana, Missoula. Since 1999, 

TechLink has served as DoD’s principal national “partnership 

intermediary,” helping to develop technology transfer 

partnerships between DoD laboratories and U.S. industry 

nationwide. TechLink’s primary focus is helping DoD labs 

to transfer their inventions to U.S. companies through 

license agreements. TechLink currently brokers or facilitates 

approximately 60 percent of all DoD license agreements 

with industry. These license agreements enable companies 

to develop, manufacture, and sell new products and services 

using DoD inventions. (For more information, see www.

techlinkcenter.org.)

The BBER has been analyzing local, state, and national 

economies and providing economic forecasts for more 

than 50 years (www.bber.umt.edu). With TechLink, it has 

previously conducted two national studies focusing on the 

economic impacts resulting from DoD technology transfer. 

The first study, in 2009, examined the economic impacts 

from all TechLink-facilitated technology transfer agreements 

during the 2000-2009 period. The second study, conducted 

in 2012, was an update of the previous study and covered the 

period from 2000-2011.2

The principal authors of this study were Dr. Will 

Swearingen of TechLink and Dr. Gregg Davis of the BBER.

2

 These studies are available online at http://techlinkcenter.org/economic-impacts.

1 15 U.S.C. 3701 and 3710, inter alia

3
METHODOLOGY

Data Gathering

To undertake this study, TechLink first assembled 

essential information on all DoD license agreements active 

during the 2000-2011 period. This information came 

from two different sources: (1) TechLink itself, for license 

agreements that it had brokered or facilitated between DoD 

labs and industry; and (2) DoD labs, for agreements they had 

established independently of TechLink assistance. A total of 

602 license agreements were included in the study. TechLink 

provided information on 254 of these agreements and the 

DoD labs on 348 agreements. The study included license 

agreements from 60 different DoD labs. 

The information gathered for each agreement 

included the name of the company that had licensed the 

DoD technology, contact information for the company’s 

designated point person, the patent number(s) or a short 

description of the licensed technology, and the effective dates 

of the agreement. 

A TechLink market research specialist used this 

information to contact each of the companies involved. 

A total of 505 companies were contacted by email and 

telephone about the outcomes of their 602 license 

agreements with DoD. The number of agreements exceeds 

the number of companies because a sizeable subset of 

companies (72, or 14 percent) had two or more license 

agreements with DoD. Of this group, eleven companies had 

three or more agreements, including one company with ten 

different agreements. This data-gathering phase lasted from 

January to September 2012. 

Survey Questions

Companies were asked a series of questions that focused 

on the economic outcomes and impacts related to their 

license agreements with DoD. They were assured that their 

responses would be treated as confidential information and 

that, in order to conceal their identity, their responses would 

be aggregated with the responses of other companies and 

submitted to DoD without any company names. Questions 

included the following:

1. Did your company develop any new products or services 

based on the license agreement? 

2. What were the total cumulative sales of new products or 

services related to this license agreement? (Contracts to 

further develop the technology for specific applications 

were considered as sales of R&D services and included in 

the total sales.)

3. Of the total sales, what was the dollar value of sales to 

the U.S. military, either directly or through a prime 

contractor?

4. What was the size category of your company when the 

agreement was signed (1-9 employees, 10-99 employees, 

100-499 employees, or 500 and more employees)?

5. Prior to this agreement, had your company previously 

had a technology transfer agreement with DoD?

Response Rate

The company response rate was very high. Only 22 

of the 505 companies contacted (slightly over 4 percent) 

declined to participate in the study, either explicitly or by 

ignoring repeated telephone calls and email messages. The 

primary reasons for this high response rate were believed to 

be the following: 

•	 Conciseness of the survey. The survey questions were few 

in number and relatively easy to answer. This encouraged 

participation.

•	 Clear communication about the purpose and legitimacy

of the study. Companies were informed that the study’s 

purpose was to quantify the extent to which DoD license 

agreements were having a positive impact on the national 

economy and U.S. defense mission. Additionally, 

companies were given contact information for the 

technology transfer leader at the DoD laboratory from 

which they had licensed the technology, so they could 

verify the study’s legitimacy.

4
•	 Assurance that company-specific information would be

kept confidential. Most companies consider their sales 

figures to be confidential, proprietary, or businesssensitive. Without the assurance that all responses 

would be treated as confidential information, few 

companies would have been willing to divulge their sales 

information.

•	 Encouragement to participate in the study by high-level

DoD officials. Companies that were reluctant to provide 

information were sent a letter from the director of the 

DoD laboratory system explaining the purpose of the 

study and confirming that company-specific information 

would kept confidential. In several cases, non-compliant 

companies were contacted by technology transfer leaders 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the Air 

Force.

•	 Persistence by the TechLink market research specialist. Some 

companies were contacted more than a dozen times by 

email or telephone in the attempt to get through to the 

right person and obtain the necessary information. 

Besides the companies that declined to participate in 

the study, several dozen companies could not be contacted 

because their license agreements had been terminated at some 

point during the 2000-2011 period and they had ceased to 

operate as corporate entities. Rigorous efforts were expended 

to try to track down individuals who might know about 

the outcomes of these DoD license agreements. In a few 

cases, these efforts were successful. However, 48 companies 

(10 percent) had left no traces: They had either gone out of 

business, changed their names, or been acquired by other 

companies. With these companies added to those that 

declined to respond, the effective response rate for the study 

was around 86 percent, very high for these types of studies.

In several cases involving non-responding companies, 

the TechLink team was able to get at least partial sales 

information through Internet searches. Internet searches 

targeting specific company names enabled the research 

team to discover press releases and other announcements 

of contracts awarded to these companies. Further research 

enabled the research team to determine whether the contracts 

involved products based on the technology licensed from 

DoD. In the case of a few large publicly traded companies, 

Internet searches of annual reports provided an effective way 

to find sales information for products based on technology 

licensed from DoD labs. 

Web sites that document U.S. government contracts 

were useful when the licensed technologies were primarily 

commercialized for sales to the U.S. military or other 

U.S. government agencies. Government sites consulted 

included: (1) USAspending.gov, the website of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), which provides 

searchable information on all federal contracts awarded 

(www.usaspending.gov); (2) DIBBS, the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) Internet Bid Board System, which provides 

information on all DLA awards to industry (https://www.

dibbs.bsm.dla.mil); and (3) the Federal Procurement Data 

System, a central repository of information on governmentwide contracts maintained by the General Service 

Administration (https://www.fpds.gov). 

Commercial sites consulted for U.S. government sales 

included: (1) Government Contracts Won, which lists awards 

to thousands of different defense contractors, large and small 

(www.governmentcontractswon.com); (2) BidLink, which 

enables searches of procurement history by the National Stock 

Numbers (NSNs) that are used to order specific military 

products (www.bidlink.net); and (3) PartsLogistics, which also 

allows government contracts to be searched by NSNs (www.

partslogistics.com). In most cases, searches of several or all of 

these sites were needed to piece together a history of U.S. 

government sales related to license agreements. 

Verifying Data Accuracy

TechLink undertook an extensive effort to cross-check 

the accuracy of company sales information to help ensure the 

overall validity of the study. This effort included consultation 

with technology transfer personnel in the DoD labs as well as 

Internet searches involving the sources mentioned above. 

Cross-checks with the DoD labs proved to be the least 

effective means of verifying company sales information. 

Most DoD license agreements require companies to submit 

annual royalty reports listing their sales. The research team’s 

initial belief was that it would be straightforward to compare 

sales figures acquired through the economic-impact survey 

with those reported to the DoD labs. TechLink randomly 

selected approximately 10 percent (24) of the 234 companies 

reporting sales for cross-checks with the DoD labs.

5

Methodology
The initial challenge was to conduct these cross-checks 

without breaching the confidentiality of company sales 

information acquired through the economic-impact study. 

TechLink’s Partnership Intermediary Agreement with 

DoD obligates it to not disclose any restricted, businessproprietary, or export-controlled data provided by DoD. This 

agreement enabled TechLink to receive information from 

DoD labs about sales related to their license agreements. 

However, because TechLink was obligated to not divulge the 

sales figures that it had gathered directly from the companies, 

it was difficult to resolve discrepancies.

For two reasons, the TechLink and DoD sets of sales 

figures often varied substantially. First, companies usually 

report only their royalty-bearing sales to the DoD labs. 

However, the royalty-bearing portion of the sale price of each 

product or service is often only a small percentage of the 

full price. For example, a company may license an imaging 

technology that is an essential component of a medical 

device—without which the device would not function. 

However, this component may be only a small portion of 

the overall device. Depending on how the license agreement 

is written, the royalty-bearing portion of the total sales price 

of a product can vary substantially. Furthermore, in many 

cases, there is ambiguity about the royalty-bearing portion 

that companies can exploit when calculating their royalties. 

Because the economic-impact study asked companies 

to divulge the total sales of products and services related 

to their DoD license agreement, but the DoD labs were 

informed of only the royalty-bearing sales, there was often a 

large discrepancy between these two figures. The TechLink 

figure invariably was larger, because it included the total 

sales. Unfortunately, there was no practical or legal way to 

reconcile these discrepancies. 

Second, companies generally do not report U.S. 

government sales to the DoD labs because these sales 

typically are not royalty-bearing. However, because of DoD’s 

interest in transition of DoD inventions to U.S. military 

use, the economic-impact study asked companies to divulge 

their U.S. military sales as a subset of the total. (It did not 

ask them to separately identify other U.S. government sales, 

which also would not be royalty-bearing.) As a result, the 

DoD labs were unable to verify the U.S. military sales data. 

In short, while cross-checks with DoD labs were instructive, 

they were often not effective in verifying company sales 

related to the DoD license agreements.

By contrast, searches of the six different government 

contract web sites listed above enabled the research team to 

confirm, with a high degree of accuracy, many of the U.S. 

military sales that companies had reported. Usually, several or 

all of these sites were needed to piece together the history of a 

company’s license-related sales to the U.S. military during the 

2000-2011 study period. 

The most effective method of cross-checking sales 

information involved examination of company annual 

reports (posted on the Internet) to determine the sales 

of products based on licensed technology. These annual 

reports are audited and, consequently, the sales figures they 

report are highly accurate. Unfortunately, this method for 

verifying sales data applied to only a few large publicly traded 

corporations. Fortunately, the DoD license agreements 

with these corporations proved to have some of the largest 

economic impacts. 

NAICS Code Assignments

TechLink next assigned each company to the appropriate 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code for the product or service resulting from its license 

agreement. This was an essential step for analysis of the 

overall economic impacts. NAICS codes are one of the most 

important inputs to the economic-impact model, IMPLAN 

(described below). NAICS is the U.S. federal government’s 

standard industry classification system. It is a comprehensive 

production-oriented system that groups companies into 

industries based on the activities in which they are primarily 

engaged. NAICS recognizes 1,175 different industries in the 

United States and assigns a unique code to each industry. 

Some of the companies in this study with multiple license 

agreements were assigned to more than one NAICS code, 

depending on the associated product or service.

In assigning NAICS codes, the TechLink team used the 

LexisNexis Academic web site (www.lexisnexis.com). They 

also relied on their personal knowledge of the companies/

technologies and a commercial NAICS-related website (www.

naics.com) that provides a convenient system for looking up 

NAICS codes by industry sectors and subsectors. 

As a final step in the data-gathering phase, company sales 

and NAICS code information were entered by TechLink 

into a database to facilitate analysis. TechLink subsequently 

provided a final economic-impact dataset to the Bureau of 

6

Methodology
Methodology

Business and Economic Research (BBER) at the University 

of Montana. The dataset included—for each DoD license 

agreement that had achieved sales—a code number to 

identify the agreement and conceal the company’s name, the 

NAICS code for the corresponding product or service, and 

the total sales figures. 

Data Analysis

BBER employed a widely used economic-impact analysis 

software program, IMPLAN, to estimate the economic 

contribution effects of the total sales resulting from the DoD 

license agreements. More than 1,500 entities in academia, 

the private sector, and government use IMPLAN to model 

economic impacts. It is employed to determine economic 

impacts on regions ranging in size from zip code area to 

county, state, and national levels (www.implan.com).

IMPLAN draws on a mathematical input-output 

framework originally developed by Wassily Leontief, the 

1973 Nobel laureate in economics, to study the flow of 

money through a regional economy. IMPLAN assumes fixed 

relationships between producers and their suppliers, based 

on demand, and that inter-industry relationships within a 

given region’s economy largely determine how that economy 

responds to change. Increases in demand for a certain 

product or service causes a multiplier effect—a cascade of 

ripples through the economy. This increased demand affects 

the producer of the product, the producer’s employees, the 

producer’s suppliers, the supplier’s employees, and others, 

ultimately generating a total impact on the economy that 

significantly exceeds the initial change in demand.

For example, Company X licenses a patented laser 

invention from the Air Force Research Laboratory. It then 

develops an improved barcode scanner using this technology, 

which it manufactures and sells nationwide. This requires 

Company X to hire factory workers, who spend their payroll 

checks on groceries and other goods. In addition, Company 

X has to purchase components and raw materials from 

other companies, which also employ workers who purchase 

groceries and other goods, and so on.

In this example, direct effects are the sales of the new 

barcode scanner based on the Air Force technology. Indirect 

effects are the inter-industry purchases of components and 

raw materials needed to manufacture the barcode scanner. 

Induced effects are the household expenditures as workers 

spend their payroll checks on goods and services across a 

wide spectrum of the economy. Economic impacts are the sum 

of direct effects, indirect effects, and induced effects. 

Multipliers are the ratio of the overall economic impact 

to the initial change and are typically derived from the 

following equation: (direct effect + indirect effect + induced 

effect) / direct effect. Multipliers are very specific to industry 

sectors and regions. IMPLAN distinguishes between 509 

industry sectors recognized by the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, based on NAICS codes. Each sector has a 

unique output multiplier because it has a different pattern 

of purchases from firms inside and outside of the regional 

economy. Each year, IMPLAN is updated using data 

collected by various federal government agencies.

In this study, the BBER applied the national-level

IMPLAN model to the total sales figures reported by the 

companies surveyed. As previously indicated, these figures 

represented all sales of products and services related to the 

DoD license agreements active during the 2000-2011 period. 

Using IMPLAN, BBER was able to estimate the sum of the 

direct, indirect, and induced effects of these sales. The overall 

purpose of this modeling exercise was to estimate the total 

economic contribution of these sales to the nation’s economy, 

including total economic output, value added, employment, 

labor income, and tax revenues. 

Data presented are for the year 2011 accounting period 

and expressed in 2011 dollars. The large majority of the 

company sales occurred prior to 2011 and some date back 

to the early 2000s. However, most of these sales are ongoing 

and there was a need to standardize the year. Use of 2011 as 

the reference year represents a conservative approach because 

it does not consider the relatively higher value of the earlier 

sales figures due to inflation (e.g., a dollar in 2000 was worth 

30.6 percent more than a dollar in 2011.) 

7
RESULTS

Sales from DoD License Agreements

Of the 505 companies contacted, 234 (46 percent) 

reported that they had sales of products or services directly 

related to their license agreements with DoD (see Table 1). 

Another 106 companies (21 percent) were still developing or 

commercializing the inventions that had been licensed from 

DoD. In short, two-thirds (67 percent) of the companies 

either were already selling products or services based on the 

DoD-developed technologies or were continuing to pursue 

this objective. Approximately a fifth of the companies, a 

total of 95 (19 percent), had not achieved any sales and had 

abandoned efforts to commercialize the subject technology. 

Finally, as previously noted, 22 companies refused to 

participate in the study and 48 were not contactable because 

they no longer existed as corporate entities. No information 

was available on the outcomes of these 70 companies—14 

percent of the total.

Eleven of the companies reporting sales had two different 

license agreements, each involving different technologies. 

Another 16 companies reporting sales each had multiple 

license agreements (up to four) for different components 

of the same technology. As a result, there were a total of 

261 license agreements with sales—43 percent of the 602 

agreements in the survey.

The total cumulative sales from the DoD 

license agreements amounted to nearly $13.4 billion 

($13,350,688,491). Of this amount, R&D contracts 

to further develop the technologies licensed from DoD 

accounted for around $590 million ($592,873,135). 

Contracts to further develop these technologies for specific 

applications were considered sales of R&D services and 

included in the total sales. These R&D contracts came from 

both the government and private sectors. They accounted for 

around 4 percent of the total sales.

Table 1. Sales resulting from DoD license agreements, 2000-2011

Companies Total Number

Contacted Percent of Total Total Sales

($ millions)

U.S. Military Sales

($ millions)

Survey Results 505 100 13,351 1,321

Companies reporting sales 234 46 13,351 1,321

 Large (500+ employees) 36 16 12,012 669

 Medium-Sized (100-499 employees) 22 9 506 406

 Small (10-99 employees) 120 51 628 158

 Very Small (1-9 employees) 56 24 204 88

No results yet because company still 

developing the technology 106 21 – –

No results because company 

abandoned the technology 95 19 – –

Companies not responding 70 14 – –

Source: Results reported by companies, January-April 2012; TechLink, Montana State University

8
Remarkably, a single license agreement accounted for 

approximately $11 billion of the sales from DoD license 

agreements—nearly 83 percent. This was a license for 

a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) antibody from the 

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 

(USUHS). The antibody is used in a top-selling drug, 

Synagis, to prevent serious lower respiratory tract disease in 

infants and young children. Without this top-selling drug, 

total sales were slightly over $2.3 billion. Of this amount, 

R&D contracts accounted for around 25 percent. 

Total sales from the single USUHS license agreement 

were nearly 20 times larger than those from the second most 

successful license agreement, which generated approximately 

$600 million in sales. Only four agreements generated more 

than $100 million in sales. Thirty-seven agreements had 

sales of at least $10 million. Notably, 130 license agreements 

generated sales of at least $1 million—approximately 22 

percent. 

Including all 602 DoD license agreements in this study, 

the average agreement generated slightly over $22 million 

in sales. Excluding sales of Synagis, the average figure was 

around $3.9 million. Among just the 261 license agreements 

with sales, the average figure was nearly $9 million (not 

counting sales of Synagis). The median agreement had sales 

of approximately $1.1 million. 

Military Sales

The survey found that sales to the U.S. military 

amounted to slightly over $1.3 billion ($1,320,964,625). 

This was approximately 10 percent of the total sales. 

However, excluding Synagis, U.S. military sales accounted for 

nearly 57 percent of total sales. This high percentage is a very 

positive finding from the DoD perspective. It demonstrates 

that, via technology transfer, the DoD R&D system is 

achieving its objective of developing new technology to 

support the U.S. defense mission. 

Some of the companies surveyed had primarily military 

sales. While companies do not need license agreements to 

manufacture products based on DoD-patented inventions 

for U.S. government use, they obtain licenses because they 

expect to eventually make commercial or foreign military 

sales. It is ideal when there are both commercial and military 

markets for new technologies because DoD benefits from 

production economies of scale that help reduce the cost of 

new defense-related products. In addition, the commercial 

marketplace helps ensure the ongoing development of the 

new technologies and also sustains production in between the 

spikes of military demand.

Sales by Company Size

A notable survey finding was that large corporations 

(with 500 or more employees) accounted for only 16 percent 

of the total companies reporting sales. Small businesses (per 

the U.S. Small Business Administration definition, those 

with fewer than 500 employees) accounted for 84 percent 

of the companies with sales (see Table 1). In the small 

business category there were 22 “medium-sized” companies, 

with between 100 and 499 employees (9 percent of the 

total); 120 “small” companies, with 10 to 99 employees (51 

percent); and 56 “very small” companies, with fewer than 10 

employees (24 percent). 

Large corporations accounted for 90 percent of the 

total sales related to the DoD license agreements. However, 

if the previously mentioned top-selling drug is excluded, 

this percentage drops to slightly less than 43 percent, with 

small businesses accounting for 57 percent of the total sales. 

Within this latter small business category, “medium-sized” 

companies accounted for slightly less than 22 percent of the 

sales, “small” companies for 27 percent, and “very small” 

companies for nearly 9 percent. With regard to U.S. military

sales, large corporations accounted for nearly 51 percent of 

the total, “medium-sized” companies for 31 percent, “small” 

companies for 12 percent, and “very small” companies for 

the remaining 7 percent.

Of the 234 companies reporting sales from their license 

agreements with DoD, only 62 (24 percent) had previously 

had technology transfer agreements with DoD. The 

remaining 172 companies (76 percent) had not. This finding 

confirms the widespread belief in the DoD technology 

transfer community that the large majority of DoD licensees 

are new partners with DoD rather than being traditional 

defense contractors. It also substantiates the argument 

that DoD technology transfer is helping to diversity and 

strengthen the U.S. industrial base and supporting the 

defense mission.

9

Results
Figure 2. Revised Sales Results by DoD Technology Source 

(Excluding Synagis)

Air Force - 4.33%

Army - 69.40%

Navy - 24.01%

NSA - 1.59%

USUHS - 0.67%

Sales by Technology Source

Figures 1 and 2 present the sales results by the DoD 

branch from which the licensed technology originated. The 

difference between the two charts is that Fig. 1 includes sales 

of Synagis related to the USUHS license agreement while 

Fig. 2 does not. Sales of technologies licensed from USUHS 

were approximately $11.034 billion (nearly 83 percent of the 

total; from the Army, slightly over $1.6 billion (12 percent); 

from the Navy, $560 million (4 percent); from the Air 

Figure 1. Sales Results by DoD Technology Source

Air Force - 0.76%

Army - 12.13%

Navy - 4.20%

NSA - 0.28%

USUHS - 82.66%

Force, slightly over $101 million (0.8 percent); and from the 

National Security Agency (NSA), $37 million (0.3 percent).

When Synagis is excluded, the picture changes 

significantly (Fig. 2). Sales of technologies licensed from the 

Army increase to 69 percent of the total; of the Navy, to 24 

percent; the Air Force, to over 4 percent; and the NSA to 1.6 

percent. The USUHS portion drops from 83 percent to less 

than 1 percent.

10

Results
Results

Sales by Technology Sector

Fig. 3 presents the sales results by technology sector. 

It excludes the top-selling drug, Synagis, which otherwise 

would have caused the Biomedicine sector to dwarf all other 

sectors. The “Sewn Products” sector accounted for the most 

sales (nearly 39 percent), and included products such as 

backpacks and parachutes, which were primarily sold to the 

U.S. military. This sector was followed by “Biomedicine” (21 

percent), which encompassed a wide range of technologies 

and included preventative and therapeutic vaccines and 

drugs, diagnostic tests, medical devices, wound care products, 

antibodies used in research, and medical software. “Software” 

was the next largest category (nearly 13 percent) and 

included all software products outside of the medical field. 

“Mechanical Devices” (10 percent) was the most eclectic 

sector and included technologies ranging from marine 

vessel guidance systems to high-security locks. “Advanced 

Materials” ranged from metal coatings and specialized 

alloys to bullet-absorbing concrete and nanomaterials and 

accounted for 9 percent of the total sales. Finally, “Electronics 

and Optics” technologies ranged from communications 

equipment and lasers to sensors and accounted for around 8 

percent of the total sales. 

Verification of Data Quality

Efforts to verify the accuracy of company sales 

information proved to be highly successful. These efforts 

included Internet-based searches of U.S. government contract 

web sites and company annual reports as well as consultation 

with DoD technology transfer personnel. Through these 

cross-checks, the research team was able to verify the 

accuracy of around $12.5 billion of the $13.4 billion in total 

sales—93 percent of the total. Excluding Synagis, the team 

was able to verify the accuracy of 63 percent of the total sales. 

The remainder of the reported sales were largely unverifiable 

due to legal and practical constraints.

Sales Figures Understate the Reality

For several reasons, total sales figures obtained by this 

survey are probably significantly smaller than the actual 

total sales resulting from DoD license agreements during the 

2000-2011 period. Reasons include the following:

•	 Non-responding companies. As previously noted, 

70 companies with DoD license agreements active 

during the 2000-2011 period did not participate in 

Figure 3. Revised Sales Results by Technology Sector 

(Excluding Synagis)

Biomedicine - 21.40%

Software - 12.50%

Advanced Materials - 9.40%

Electronics and Optics - 8.10%

Mechanical Devices - 9.60%

Sewn Products - 38.90%

11
the company sales date back to the early 2000s and most 

occurred prior to 2011. Use of 2011 as the reference year 

does not consider the higher value of the earlier sales 

figures. For example, a dollar in 2000 was worth 30.6 

percent more than a dollar in 2011.

For all of the above reasons, the total sales figures 

reported in this survey are conservative and probably 

significantly understate the actual total sales resulting from 

DoD license agreements during the 2000-2011 period.

Economic-Impact Analysis

Upon receiving the company sales and NAICS code 

data from TechLink, the BBER employed IMPLAN to 

determine the economic contribution effects of the total sales 

figures. Results below are presented for output, value added,

employment, labor income, and tax revenues. As previously 

noted, all dollar figures are reported in 2011 dollars.

Output

Output is the total value of purchases by intermediate 

and final consumers. According to the national IMPLAN 

model, the nearly $13.4 billion (2011 $) in direct sales of 

new products and services reported by companies generated 

an additional $22.9 billion in sales economy-wide. Of this 

amount, around $11.6 billion was generated indirectly as 

the result of inter-industry purchases (firms purchasing 

from each other), and $11.3 billion was generated from the 

induced effect, the result of households spending payroll 

on goods and services economy-wide (see Table 2). The 

total economy-wide output (the sum of direct, indirect, and 

induced sales) was $36.3 billion.

the study—22 because they declined to participate 

and another 48 that could not be contacted because 

they had ceased to operate as corporate entities. Some 

companies in the first group are known to be making 

sizeable commercial (non-military) sales of products 

based on the licensed technologies. For example, one 

company submitted a royalty check to the Air Force in 

2009 for $100,000—without any specific disclosure of 

its sales. While the research team was able to capture 

some of the U.S. military sales of these companies from 

Internet searches, it was unable to learn of any of their 

commercial sales. 

•	 Sub-licensee sales. The total sales figures also underreport 

the reality because they do not include most of the sublicensee sales. The TechLink team asked all companies 

if they had sublicensed the technologies that they had 

licensed from DoD. Many companies reported that 

they had. However, most of these companies declined 

to identify their sublicensees or to divulge what they 

knew of sublicensee sales. Some claimed that they were 

prevented from identifying sublicensees by the terms of 

their sublicensing agreements. Others simply declined 

to identify these sublicensees. Sublicensee sales of DoDlicensed technologies are probably substantial. For 

example, in two cases where licensees did report their 

sublicensee sales, the combined value was $116 million.

•	 Licensee underreporting of sales. Another reason why the 

total reported sales are believed to be less than the actual 

sales is that underreporting is common in the licensing 

world. Historic royalty audit data from the Invotex 

Group, a well-established accounting and intellectual 

property management company, reveals that over 80 

percent of licensees underreport and underpay royalties 

to their licensors.3 There are various reasons why royalties 

are underreported. However, the Invotex Group found 

that at least half of the licensees that it examined actually 

underreported sales. Frequently, these involved nextgeneration products based on the licensed technology.

•	 Inflation. Finally, inflation contributes, in effect, to an 

underreporting of sales. All sales data are expressed in 

2011 dollars as previously discussed. However, some of 

3 D.R. Stewart and J.A. Byrd, “The Significance of Underreported 

Royalties-2007 Update: The Magnitude and Meaning of Royalty 

Misreporting,” Invotex Group, Baltimore, MD, February 2007, online at: 

www.lawseminars.com/materials/07LICIL/licil%20m%20stewart2.pdf; 

D.R. Stewart and J.A. Byrd, “89% of Royalty Revenue is Underreported! 

Top Five Questions You Should Ask Your Licensee to Avoid Becoming a 

Statistic,” Invotex Group, Baltimore, MD, April 2012, online at: 

www.invotex.com/assets/2012_Royalty_Audit_Article.pdf.

12

Results
Results

Dividing total economy-wide output ($36.3 billion) by 

the direct output of companies selling products and services 

related to their license agreements with DoD ($13.4 billion) 

yielded an output multiplier of 2.7. That is, for every dollar 

in sales directly attributable to the DoD license agreements, 

an additional $1.70 in sales was generated economy-wide. 

Value Added

Value added is the difference between an industry’s 

or company’s output and the cost of intermediate inputs. 

Expressed differently, it is the difference between a product’s 

sale price and its production cost. This measure recognizes 

that companies buy goods and services from other companies 

in order to create products of greater value than the sum of 

the goods and services used to make these products. This 

increase in value resulting from the production process is 

the “value added.” As estimated by IMPLAN, value added is 

equal to the total sales (plus or minus inventory adjustments) 

minus the cost of the goods and services purchased to 

produce the products sold. 

The main difference between output and value added 

is that output includes the value of intermediate goods and 

services, while value added does not. Many economists 

prefer value added as an economic measure because, at the 

macroeconomic scale, output multiple-counts the value of 

inputs. For example, in the previously cited case of Company 

X, which sells an improved barcode scanner based on an 

Air Force laser invention: Company X purchases laser rods, 

electronic components, optical components, and various 

raw materials to make the barcode scanner. The value of 

Company X’s sales incorporates the value of these laser rods 

and other inputs. Further, each of the companies from which 

Company X purchases its inputs incorporates the value of 

their respective inputs from other companies. By combining 

and aggregating the values of intermediate and final 

products, output overstates the size of the U.S. economy by a 

factor of roughly 2. For this reason, Gross Domestic Product 

(GDP), a measure of value added, is used to track the size of 

the U.S. economy because it is a non-duplicative aggregation 

of production across all industries in the United States. 

In the current study, value added measures the real 

contribution that each of the DoD technology transfer 

partners made to the national economy as a result of their 

license agreements with DoD. According to the national 

IMPLAN model, the $13.4 billion (2011 $) in sales reported 

by companies generated an additional $17.4 billion in value 

added impact economy-wide. Of this total, $4.5 billion was 

generated directly, $6.4 billion was generated indirectly, and 

$6.5 billion was generated from the induced effect (see Table 2).

Employment

According to the national IMPLAN model, an estimated 

27,128 jobs were directly sustained economy-wide in 2011 

by the $13.4 billion in sales. Indirect effects were responsible 

for an additional 56,728 jobs, and induced effects for 

79,210 jobs. The IMPLAN model estimates that, altogether, 

163,067 jobs nationwide resulted from the direct, indirect, 

and induced effects of the DoD license agreements with U.S. 

industry. 

Using the same procedure outlined above to derive the 

multiplier, an employment multiplier of 6 was calculated. 

That is, for every job directly attributable to the DoD license 

agreements, five additional jobs were created or retained 

economy-wide. This relatively large multiplier was mainly 

due to the relatively high-paying jobs associated with hightech and technology-based industries, which accounted for 

the majority of the companies involved. That is, workers 

in these well-paying industries pumped more income back 

into the economy than lower-paid workers in other sectors, 

resulting in more job creation economy-wide.

Labor Income

Labor income consists of employee compensation (wage 

and salary payments, including benefits), paid to workers as 

well as proprietary income (income received by self-employed 

individuals). The national IMPLAN model estimated that 

labor income directly associated with the $13.4 billion in 

sales was $2.7 billion in 2011, or approximately $101,000 

per job. This was almost double the average U.S. wage in 2011 

of $52,000. 

The indirect labor income was estimated at $4.2 billion, 

or approximately $74,000 per job. The induced labor income 

was estimated to be $3.7 billion, or $46,000 per job. Average 

13
wages for the indirect and induced jobs were substantially 

lower than the average wage for the jobs directly created 

or retained because many of these jobs were in lower-paid 

manufacturing and service sectors. Together, the indirect and 

induced labor income amounted to $7.9 billion. The total 

economy-wide labor income resulting in 2011 from the DoD 

license agreements was $10.6 billion. The average wage of the 

approximately 163,000 jobs created or retained as a result of 

the DoD license agreements was $65,000, approximately 25 

percent higher than the average U.S. wage of $52,000 in 2011.

The labor income multiplier was 3.9, indicating that for 

every dollar in wage and salary income attributable to the 

DoD license agreements, an additional $2.90 was generated 

nationally in employee compensation and proprietary 

income. 

Tax Revenues

Tax revenues were estimated for the $13.4 billion in 

sales and their economy-wide indirect and induced effects. 

These tax revenues included social insurance taxes (paid by 

employers, employees, and the self-employed), personal 

income taxes, motor vehicle licenses, property taxes, 

corporate profits taxes and dividends, and indirect business 

taxes (comprised mainly of excise and property taxes, fees, 

licenses, and sales taxes). Total taxes collected by federal, 

state, and local government entities were estimated at $3.7 

billion. This included slightly over $2.3 billion in federal 

tax revenues and $1.3 billion in state and local tax revenues. 

In sum, for every dollar of sales related to the DoD license 

agreements, an additional $0.28 was generated in federal, 

state, and local tax revenue. 

14

Results
Table 2. Nationwide Economic Impacts from DoD License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output

($ billions)

Employment 

(Jobs created or 

retained)

Value Added

($ billions)

Labor Income

($ billions)

Tax Revenue

($ billions)

Average Wage

(US = $52,000)

Direct Impact 13.4 27,128 4.5 2.7 100,926

Indirect Impact 11.6 56,728 6.4 4.2 74,339

Induced Impact 11.3 79,210 6.5 3.7 46,093

Federal Tax 

Revenues 2.3

State and Local Tax 

Revenues 1.3

Total Economy-Wide 

Impact 36.3 163,067 17.4 10.6 3.7 65,041

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

SUMMARY

In summary, this study estimated the economic 

contribution to the U.S. economy of Department of Defense 

(DoD) license agreements in effect during the 2000-2011 

period. Its purpose was to determine the extent to which these 

license agreements (1) contributed to new economic activity 

and job creation in the United States, and (2) resulted in the 

transition of new technology to U.S. military use. 

The research team contacted 505 companies having 

license agreements with DoD during the 2000-2011 period. 

A total of 602 license agreements were included in the 

study because some companies had multiple agreements. 

Companies were asked to divulge the total sales of new 

products and services directly related to their DoD license 

agreements. They were also asked about their license-related 

sales to the U.S. military, either directly or through a defense 

contractor. Nearly half of the companies—234 out of 

505—reported sales. Collectively, they reported slightly over 

$13.4 billion in total sales and $1.3 billion in military sales 

(in 2011 dollars). 

IMPLAN economic-impact assessment software was 

used to estimate the total economic impacts related to 

these sales. Impacts analyzed included economic output, 

value added, employment, labor income, and tax revenues. 

Total economy-wide sales, as measured by output, were 

estimated at $36.3 billion. Value added was estimated at 

$17.4 billion, representing new wealth creation in the 

economy. Employment impacts included 163,067 jobs with 

an average wage of $65,000. Labor income in 2011 was 

estimated at $10.6 billion. The $13.4 billion in sales and its 

economy-wide effects generated approximately $2.3 billion 

in federal tax revenues and over $1.3 billion in state and 

local tax revenues. Table 2 summarizes the total economic 

contribution of the DoD license agreements with U.S. 

industry.

15
APPENDICES

The following appendices provide a more focused 

look at the economic impacts resulting from DoD licenses 

during the 2000-2011 period. They estimate the economic 

impacts for selected DoD components from which the 

licensed technologies originated. These include the three 

DoD services (Army, Navy, Air Force), the National Security 

Agency, USUHS, and several major DoD commands and 

laboratories. Breakouts for smaller DoD labs are not included 

for two reasons. First, the total sales related to their license 

1. Air Force

2. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

3. Army

4. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) 

5. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) 

6. Army Medical Materiel Development Activity (USAMMDA)

7. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) 

8. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) 

9. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC)

10. Army Research Laboratory (ARL)

11. National Security Agency (NSA)

12. Navy

13. Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

14. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)

15. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)

agreements were too small and geographically concentrated 

to be legitimately analyzed by the national IMPLAN model. 

Second, revealing the outcomes of the limited number 

of license agreements from these labs could enable fairly 

accurate guesses about the sales of specific companies, 

violating the need to keep company sales information 

confidential. For explanation of the economic terms used in 

the appendices, please refer to the main text of the report.

16
APPENDIX 1

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Air Force License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 99.6 692 58.1 50.3

Indirect Impact 58.6 403 33.9 22.2

Induced Impact 117.6 828 68.2 38.1

Federal Tax Revenues 22.7

State and Local Tax Revenues 12.8

Total Economy-Wide Impact 275.7 1,923 160.2 110.7 35.5

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 2

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 90.4 661 52.6 47.1

Indirect Impact 52.8 362 30.4 20.0

Induced Impact 108.8 765 63.1 35.3

Federal Tax Revenues 20.8

State and Local Tax Revenues 11.9

Total Economy-Wide Impact 252.0 1,788 146.1 102.4 32.7

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

17

Appendices
APPENDIX 3

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 1,603.7 9,274 703.6 518.4

Indirect Impact 1,338.4 6,423 658.6 413.7

Induced Impact 1,510.1 10,611 875.1 489.3

Federal Tax Revenues 308.8

State and Local Tax Revenues 165.1

Total Economy-Wide Impact 4,452.3 26,307 2,237.3 1,421.4 473.9

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 4

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army Corps of Engineers-Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) 

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 96.7 665 49.2 38.1

Indirect Impact 70.8 398 38.0 23.4

Induced Impact 99.7 701 57.8 32.3

Federal Tax Revenues 20.1

State and Local Tax Revenues 11.1

Total Economy-Wide Impact 267.2 1,764 145.0 93.8 31.2

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

18

Appendices
Appendices

APPENDIX 5

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 448.4 1,244 174.9 127.7

Indirect Impact 359.0 1,882 200.5 131.0

Induced Impact 419.2 2,948 243.0 135.8

Federal Tax Revenues 84.3

State and Local Tax Revenues 45.4

Total Economy-Wide Impact 1,226.5 6,074 618.5 394.6 129.7

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 6

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army Medical Materiel Development Activity (USAMMDA)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 70.4 209 27.3 15.1

Indirect Impact 51.3 259 27.7 18.4

Induced Impact 54.2 381 31.4 17.6

Federal Tax Revenues 11.4

State and Local Tax Revenues 6.1

Total Economy-Wide Impact 176.0 849 86.5 51.1 17.5

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

19
APPENDIX 7

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 236.8 474 82.6 57.0

Indirect Impact 203.6 1,029 114.5 75.2

Induced Impact 214.3 1,507 124.2 69.4

Federal Tax Revenues 43.6

State and Local Tax Revenues 24.1

Total Economy-Wide Impact 654.7 3,009 321.3 201.7 67.7

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 8

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 123.8 468 55.4 46.1

Indirect Impact 93.2 522 52,0 33.6

Induced Impact 129.1 909 74.9 41.9

Federal Tax Revenues 25.2

State and Local Tax Revenues 13.2

Total Economy-Wide Impact 346.1 1,899 182.3 121.6 38.4

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

20

Appendices
Appendices

APPENDIX 9

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 937.6 6,764 425.8 304.7

Indirect Impact 806.0 3,623 364.4 224.4

Induced Impact 857.1 6,019 496.6 277.6

Federal Tax Revenues 177.7

State and Local Tax Revenues 93.9

Total Economy-Wide Impact 2,600.7 16,406 1,286.7 806.8 271.6

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 10

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Army Research Laboratory (ARL)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 90.4 442 39.0 34.1

Indirect Impact 78.9 392 42.4 26.9

Induced Impact 98.9 695 57.3 32.0

Federal Tax Revenues 19.8

State and Local Tax Revenues 10.7

Total Economy-Wide Impact 268.2 1,529 138.7 93.1 30.5

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

21
APPENDIX 11

Nationwide Economic Impacts from National Security Agency (NSA)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 36.9 333 22.8 31.5

Indirect Impact 19.2 136 11.9 6.8

Induced Impact 62.0 437 36.0 20.1

Federal Tax Revenues 10.8

State and Local Tax Revenues 5.9

Total Economy-Wide Impact 118.0 905 70.6 58.4 16.7

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 12

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Navy

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 560.0 2,392 255.2 216.0

Indirect Impact 429.6 2,349 238.2 150.0

Induced Impact 593.2 4,171 343.8 192.2

Federal Tax Revenues 117.2

State and Local Tax Revenues 61.2

Total Economy-Wide Impact 1,582.7 8,911 837.3 558.1 178.4

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

22

Appendices
Appendices

APPENDIX 13

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 102.7 239 37.9 28.1

Indirect Impact 94.1 451 49.9 32.1

Induced Impact 97.5 685 56.5 31.6

Federal Tax Revenues 20.0

State and Local Tax Revenues 10.6

Total Economy-Wide Impact 294.3 1,375 144.3 91.7 30.6

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

APPENDIX 14

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 261.0 1,037 116.8 99.4

Indirect Impact 201.7 1,093 112.2 71.2

Induced Impact 276.5 1,943 160.2 89.6

Federal Tax Revenues 54.7

State and Local Tax Revenues 28.8

Total Economy-Wide Impact 739.2 4,073 389.2 260.2 83.5

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

23
APPENDIX 15

Nationwide Economic Impacts from Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)

License Agreements, 2000-2011

Output 

($ Millions)

Employment 

(Number of Jobs 

created or retained)

Value Added 

($ Millions)

Labor Income 

($ Millions)

Tax Revenue 

($ Millions)

Direct Impact 11,033.9 14,504 3,466.6 1,926.8

Indirect Impact 9,759.4 47,621 5,446.0 3,639.4

Induced Impact 9,016.8 63,393 5,226.0 2,921.8

Federal Tax Revenues 1,889.9

State and Local Tax Revenues 1,071.5

Total Economy-Wide Impact 29,810.1 125,518 14,138.6 8,488.1 2,961.4

Source: BBER, University of Montana; IMPLAN

Note: Totals may not tally due to rounding

24

Appendices
National Economic Impacts

from DoD License Agreements

with U.S. Industry

2000-2011

TechLink and Bureau of Business and Economic Research