CHAPTER 5.APPLICATION SCENARIO
6.3 E XPERIMENTS AND R ESULTS
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
61
3-1 to Proposition 3-3) to link them to the real enterprises, to make these three characteristics the features of enterprises. Thence these elements could be referenced by other enterprises, and treated like operant resources.
Assumption 5: IP+ in this stage is designed for Taiwanese enterprises, and the database of patent is Google Patent which includes IP documents from different organizations of countries. But if we use Chinese company name as the keyword to search in IP+, some company name could not be found smoothly because the Chinese company name and English name sometimes could not link together.
Therefore, user should try to search with right English company names in advance.
6.3 Experiments and Results
In this section, we will narrate in detail following the next three parts. The first part will elaborate the evaluation methods we chose and how to design the whole experiment procedure. In the second part, the background and detailed information of experiment objectors would be introduced, and the schedule of experiment would also be revealed.
The results will be shown in the final section.
6.3.1 Experiment Procedure
Data Collection Procedure Design
In this research, we follow seven guidelines of design science, and the approach used here was observational method, case study which is included in guideline3-design evaluation. Besides we organized to do the interview to collect the data. There are three reasons why we chose case study to evaluate the IS research:
1. Because the final purpose of IP+ focuses more on facilitating strategy
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
62
formulating, concentrate more on the layer of strategy, no matter patent strategy or business strategy. So the case study could provide more detailed and in-depth explanation which combines the background of respondents
2. The macro perspective of evaluation wants to compare the difference after the members of enterprises use our system, and especially the difference in process.
It would be difficult to collect the results if we attempt to use questionnaire, testing and other evaluation methods. That is why, we chose interview in the end.
3. The micro perspective of evaluation wants to check the factors offered by IP+
are valuable, so we need to interview that we could follow design thinking method (d.schoolbootcamp 2009) to observe and engage them into the simulation environment.
The data collection procedure would follow the Figure 6.2. First we interviewed and collected data about basic information of each enterprise and followed the questions we designed (Appendix C), and then asked information related to patent strategy and business strategy to different targets. After first step of interview, we illustrated the system and asked them try to test the system. The final stage was to interview again, to collect the feedback. Each activity would collect different kinds of data, and each type of data would correspond to the proposition we proposed before.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
63
Figure 6.2 The Procedure Comparison
Interview Questions Design
The questions were designed with four parts, IP team was the target respondents for the first part; so we gather data more from the perspective of their view, opinions about patent strategy and business strategy, and even the detailed consideration of patent strategy, when and how for instance. And the second part of questions was planned for managers to gather the information more associated with business strategy. For example, how to use patent and how patent strategy affects market share, etc. These means might all bring about a part of power of business strategy.
The part three was focusing more on the connection between IP and enterprise sides, and 3-1 to 3-3 played the role of bridge that connected to proposition 4, because these factors provided and used by the system. After system testing, we were going to the final stage. Part four questions were inquired after system testing, and targets consisted of IP team and management. Hence, we hope questions and propositions could successfully mutual proof.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
64
6.3.2 Experiment Objects
Background
For making case study more comprehensive and complete, the targets we interviewed come from different industrial domains, details showed as Table 6.2
Company A is one of the most famous consumer electronic products manufacturers in Taiwan. They design smart phones and OS for their own. They have seventeen thousand employees and own 8.1 billion capitals, that we could classify it as a large enterprise on the basis of this information. Company B is chosen as the pioneer enterprise in this research, which belongs to semiconductor manufacturing- the world's leading development areas of semiconductor manufacturing is Taiwan. The main products of company B are related to wafer; although they have 250 employees, they own five hundred million capitals. Hence we rank them in large and medium enterprise.
The main business of company C is game agents. Comparing with company A & B, the employees and capital are lesser, and they only apply patent for business model; so we classify it as a SME. Company D designs and produces customized products to their customers, and the patent type they applied were utility model patents. Contrast to design patent, the range of utility model patents protection is smaller, although the applying time is much shorter for the design patent. Considered all information listed in Table 6.2, we categorized is as a SME.
‧
Table 6.2 Profile of Enterprises
A B C D Products Smart phone Mask Package, Reticle
SMIF Pod, etc.
Hardware & Software Hardware Software Hardware
Type of
Capital 8,177,000,000 540,000,000 100,000,000 60,000,000
Scale Large Large & Medium SME SME
Targets of Interview
Table 6.3 Respondents of Each Company
A B C D
Respondents IP Team 1. President 2. IP Team 3. RD Team 4. Sales
5. Legal Commissioner
President General Manager
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
66
Table 6.3 shows the respondents of each company. Because the company B is the main representative enterprise in the research, almost all sections concerning to patent and business strategy were involved in the interview. And company A was the pretest representative (Table 6.4), we did the interview and modify the direction of our questions, because of this, some final version of the questions were not asked, but we further collected its second-hand information afterward. The first interview toward president of company B also a pretest, because the last pretest focused on IP team, we might lose some attention of management. Therefore, we needed to add and adjust questions which is concerning to the layer of management.
At the second time to the fourth time we interviewed company B and followed the procedure we mentioned before (Figure 6.2). Since company B is the pioneer case in the research, we did comprehensive interview through all sections involved. Therefore, it took two more interviews than company C and D. The first formal interview of company B aimed to understand the basic background of company B, and the history and big events of the company were shared by the president. Because the respondent is the business owner, it could help us know the series of information well. Second and third formal interviews took aim to fulfill the questions by different respondents.
Company C and D had one time formal interview, because these two companies had no IP team, we just let manager to pretend their position as a member of IP team to reply the questions of part one. Besides, we already went through the process of data collection when interviewed company B, so we could do the interviews smoothly.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
67
Table 6.4 Interview Schedule
Date 11/24/2012 4/22/2013 5/6/2013 5/27/2013 6/4/2013 6/17/2013 7/1/2013
Company A B B B B D C
Respondents IP Team President President President All General Manager
President
Purpose Pretest Pretest Background Formal Interviews
Formal Interviews
Formal Interviews
Formal Interviews
6.3.3 Propositions Verification and Results
In section 6.3.3, we would try to verify propositions and contributions, and the main evaluation approach is qualitative method
6.3.3.1 Proposition 1: Enterprise’s IP team could provide professional considerations of patent strategy for business.
Data Analysis
‧
Table 6.5 IP Team related patent strategy
A B C D
1. the stage of research
& design
This part was based on the point of IP team’s view, if there was no IP team in their company, we asked the manager to assume themselves as a member of IP team to reply these questions.
The type of products of company A, B and D includes hardware (Table 6.5), namely, the product they provided are physical entities. Company C applied patent when their new business model was in practice. Compared with using patent as a business model, commercialization is a more direct way to use the patent. But either way, patent would be the way that enterprise gain the profit, no matter it is well planned
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
69
by IP team or not. Profit maximization is the top goal of each enterprise.
We can see the result that the time of applying patents would be affected by the existence of IP team. Just like company A and company B have their IP team in the firm, the patent applying point were more during the research and design. They would even be ready to apply a patent when they just came up with a new idea. Besides, because of the IP team in the firm, IP team could focus more on the market and the patent strategy of other competitors. They could find the new technology which is not applied as a patent, or develop a new product which is wanted by the market. Company likes this type is more possible to grasp the pioneer patents or be the leader in the specific market.
On the contrary, company C and company D have no IP team in their firms. Most of the patent applying point was after the product was sold or after the whole business was completely workable. Although company D had the experiment to apply patent in the early stage of design when they collaborated with other enterprises, in most of this kind of situation, they are requested to co-own the patent with their cooperators. In other words, even they owned the patent, and it would be restricted as they could not exercise the right of the patent easily. Therefore, we could find the applying point was very important for the enterprise (we also could get the support from the data for Proposition3-1), it would be related to the claim of patent and the market share
Because of IP team in company, IP team could formulate good patent strategy, and provide professional considerations of patent strategy for business, the enterprise would have higher possibility to play the active role in the market, either taking offensive action, using litigation as a mean, for instance, or have higher willing to do the R&D and cooperate with others. IP team even could be the evidence of actual strength for an enterprise, and they could present a great corporate image shows the enterprise is creative and potential. Thence, proposition 1 is supported.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
70
Table 6.6 The result of proposition 1
With IP Team & Patent Strategy
Enterprise plays the active role and often is a leader in the market.
Without IP Team & Patent Strategy
Enterprise with passive attitude is easy to be affected by competitors and the profit margins.
Figure 6.3 Enterprise Attitude Schematic Diagram Data Encoding
From the interview raw data, we could find the key concepts that IP team could provide for business is professional opinions. We found the final code-
PROFESSIONALSUPPORT,ANALYSIS COMPREHENSIVENESS, and
CIRCUMSPECTION can interpret and be more close to the proposition’s point- professional considerations of patent strategy.
In order to find the supported final code, we interviewed IP members, and let them to answer the questions based on their professional view. The details of interview data
C
A,B D
Better Patent Strategy
(More R&D→ more profit margins) Active
Passive
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
71
are shown in Table 6.7. The question we involved was about their opinions toward patent strategy, what do they do to formulate patent strategy, and what factors need to be considered. Referencing to the first question, we encoded (Saldana 2008) the final code is PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT. B company’s IP team compared the situation now with past organization which is without IP team’s support, and the IP team could offer estimation and plan. RD in company B shared the current process when they develop a new product, and the IP team is indispensable in the whole procedure. The president of company C stood on the situation of IP team, and he thought applying patent was a practical issue, not just paper work; so the areas of specialty could help them. Hence we could a brief summary that IP team could provide professional support for enterprise.
ANALYSIS COMPREHENSIVENESS is the final code of question 2, IP member of company B structure planned the patent strategy, and partition it into short term and long term. Also the IP member of A company had broad considerations, taking industry chain and life cycle of products into consideration, for instance. Therefore, IP team could engage a comprehensive analysis.
Besides, IP member would analyze a lot of elements before they made any decision.
For example, depending on production, sales and competitor’s countries to decide patent strategy area, it shows their CIRCUMSPECTION.
‧
Table 6.7 Interview Data Encoding Toward Proposition 1 (According to Appendix D:Table D-1)
Questions Row Data Preliminary
Code importance of patent search when applying patents.
Estimation Offer
PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT
Company B: IP Team
Now the first thing in the product developing process is to evaluate with IP team to see if this new product include competitors or our patents. To judge whether we need to do patent avoidance or we have the innovative technology to make patent application.
Indispensable Company B: RD
Applying patents is very practical, not just apply a paper document. Present patent application just helps us, let us have a basic understanding of the patent.
Areas of
Long-term goal: to apply others selling products for patents, that is a positive value realization.
Structured Plan
ANALYSIS COM- PREHENSIVENESS
Company B: IP Team
Intellectual property system also progresses from year to year; patent certification can be considered a part of patent strategy.
Authentication Company B: RD
Consider which industry to belong to, the role of the industry chain (upstream and downstream), and the standard (association).
Broad
According to the product life cycle to decide whether to apply for patents or categories.
Based on the production, sales and competitor’s countries to decide patent strategy area.
Need to be of precise protection.
If the patent strategy in some countries is uncertain, we may apply for the Taiwan case, and we can claim international priority to apply case abroad within a year abroad.
Detailed Analysis
CIRCUMSPECTION
Company B: IP Team
‧
6.3.3.2Proposition 2: Good and complete patent strategy could strengthen business strategy.
Data Analysis
Table 6.8 Managers related business strategy
A B C D
Offense and defense 1. Offense: affecting the market size,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
74
more about business strategy to reply the questions in this section.
From the managers’ point of view, except commercialization, good patent strategy brings more benefit by using patent to find cooperators, authorize, cross-license, and even buy others patent to strengthen their own patent strategy and business strategy. For example, A and B company took patent strategy as a mean to challenge competitors by controlling the pioneer patent to monopoly the market and block rivals' development, and this type of strategy made them to be a leader in the market. Otherwise, even they took patent strategy as a mean of defense, they still had more bargaining chip for negotiations, because the more patents, the more concerns for competitors. Moreover, they could turn defense into offense, cumulative patents could be utilized as astuteness and resourcefulness by harassing opponents. This might not be the attacks that competitor was unable to withstand, but this might be a derangement that influenced the pace of development for rivals.
Companies without IP team, they were short of complete patent strategy, they just use patent to protect themselves not to be violated by others, and they seldom use patent for other purpose. In the case of company D, the total numbers of patents were not many in their industry, so they just owned one or two key patents they could be more dominant than other competitors. Also because of the company D was the minority which owned related patents, they had better corporate image, and better corporate image brought more opportunities. In the domain of company D, their level of patent strategy was higher than others, although the degree of completion of patent strategy was relatively lower when compared to company A and B. Thus proposition 2 could also be supported by this special case.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
75
Table 6.9 The result of proposition 2
With patent strategy Enterprise owns more offensive strategy Without patent strategy Enterprise owns more defensive strategy
Data Encoding
The key concept of proposition 2 could derive from the interview row data (Table 6.10). STRENGTH REFLECTED and MARKET POWER KEEPING represent the importance of complete patent strategy, a good patent strategy could strengthen business strategy.
In this section of interview, we focus on management side like how enterprises use patent, how patent strategy effects market share. Sales thought the patents were bargaining chips for enterprises, and they could use it to molest rivals. And the patent of company C was a business model which was one of their profit means. Thence, no matter what kind of role that patent plays, it reflects the strength of enterprise.
Patent strategy also helps enterprise to KEEPMARKETPOWER. Sales of company B said, if there was a powerful patent owned large market share or lots of by-products, they would try their best to get it. And the most valuable patents were those profitable, said by RD in company B. Moreover, the president also took patent to protect their market share. According to these preliminary codes, we could also conclude the final code- MARKET POWER KEEPING, and further support the Proposition 2.
‧
Table 6.10 Interview Data Encoding Toward Proposition 2 (According to Appendix D: Table D-2)
Questions Row Data Preliminary Code Final Code Interviewee
How will businesses use patents?
Patent is to have offense and defense. General offense will tend to the derivative by-products in the market or the utilization; I think defense is more like bargaining chips, that is, I have some small patent which could make opponents uncomfortable, but this patent is harmless, just a means of harassment.
Bargaining Chip
STRENGTH REFLECTED
Company B: Sales
Most types of patents are applied patent which is based on existing patents and to develop new applications.
Profit Means Company C: President
How patent strategieseffect the enterprise market?
If patent strategy could derive by-products or have big market share, such as this kind of key patent that company would strive to get it.
Key Patent Holding revenue, and others do not care if you have Infringement or not.
Ability Company B: RD
We use patent to protect ourselves for the future development of the market and to avoid conflicts.
Market Share Company C: President
‧
國立 政 治 大
立 政 治 大