CHAPTER 5.APPLICATION SCENARIO
7.3 F UTURE W ORK
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
103
7.3 Future Work
After demonstrating how IP+ brings its contributions to enterprises, and the empirical results. The next stage of research will overcome the limitations and expand to excavate more findings.
(1) From the perspective of designed artifact:
For the future target, we want to improve the efficiency of system which has lower speed to search the data, because IP+ needs to grab the information in different websites.
So finding a better way to collect the data is the next goal.
Besides, according to the format of website might change as time pass, we need to confirm that all format could be analysis by IP+.
(2) From the perspective of foundations:
We want to extend the result provided by IP+ as we mentioned before, the outcome can combine many different industries when searching only with a keyword. Therefore, enterprises could hold the situation comprehensively, not just concerning to their own industrial domain. This will help enterprise to be a forward-looking company, and makes them to find the potential direction of development.
(3) From the perspective of the managerial implications:
We want to encourage SMEs which have no IP team in the company to adopt the system, it could spend the cost even lesser than they imagine, but it help them formulate better strategies, and prompt them to become large enterprise.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
I
REFERENCE
1. Achrol, R. S., and Kotler, P. 1999. "Marketing in the network economy," Journal of Marketing (63), pp. 146–163.
2. Allee, V. 2008. "Value Network Analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets," Journal of Intellectual Capital (9:1), pp. 5-24
3. Alter, S. 2002. "Information Systems, the Foundation of E-business," Prentice-Hall, January.
4. Black, F., and Scholes, M. 1973. "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities," Journal of Political Economy (81:3), pp. 637–654.
5. Boar, B. H. 1994. "Practical Steps for Aligning Information Technology with Business Strategies, How to Achieve a Competitive Advantage," John Wiley &
Sons, December, New York.
6. Bontis, N. 2000. "Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital," International Journal of Management Reviews, (3:1), pp. 41-60
7. Collan, M., Fullér, R., and Mezei, J. 2009. "Fuzzy Pay-Off Method for Real Option Valuation", Journal of Applied Mathematics and Decision Sciences.
8. Collan, M., and Heikkilä, M. 2011. "Enhancing Patent Valuation with the Pay-off Method," Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (16), September, pp 377-384.
9. Council of Labor Affairs published by Taiwan Executive Yuan. 1996. "Standard Industrial Classification, "
available at:
http://www.cla.gov.tw/cgi-bin/siteMaker/SM_theme?page=44ea9450, retrial date:
2012-09-25
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
II
10. D'aveni, R. A., and Gunther, R. E. 1995. "Hypercompetitive Rivalries: Competing in Highly Dynamic Environments," Free Press, New York.
11. d.school. 2009. “The Bootcamp Bootleg,” Institute of Design at Stanford.
12. Ernst, H. 2003. "Patent information for strategic technology management,"World Patent Information (25), pp. 233–242.
13. Fenwick & West LLP. 2005. "Patent Litigation," October 17
14. Gomes-Casseres, B. 1994. "Group versus group: How alliance networks compete,"Harvard business review.
15. Grindley, P.C., and Teece, D.J. 1998. "Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics,"IEEE ENG MANAGE REV (26:
2), pp. 92-111.
16. Guellec, D., and Potterie, B.V. 2000. "Applications, grants and the value of patent," Economics Letters (69), pp. 109–114.
17. Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C.K. 1994. "Competing for the Future," Harvard School Business Press, Boston, (16).
18. Harris, R.G. 2001. "The knowledge‐based economy: intellectual origins and new economic perspectives,"International Journal of Management Reviews (3:1) pp.
21–40.
19. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F., and Vopel, K. 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights,"Research Policy (32), pp. 1343–1363.
20. Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A., and Trajtenberg, M. 2000. "Market value and patent citations:
a first look," NBER Working Paper (7741), June.
Hevner, A. R., Marchm, S. T., Park, J., and Ram, S. 1991. "Evolution of the marketing organization: New Frontiers for Turbulent Environments," Journal of Marketing (55), October, pp. 77–93.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
III
21. International Chamber of Commerce. 2005. "Intellectual Property: Source of innovation, creativity, growth and progress".
22. Jeon, J., Lee, C. and Park, Y. 2011. "How to Use Patent Information to Search Potential Technology Partners in Open Innovation,"Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (16), September, pp. 385-393.
23. Jou, Y.P. 2006. "虎與狐的智慧力－智慧資源規劃九把金鑰," 天下文化出版社.
24. Lamb, R.B. 1984. "Competitive strategic management," June.
25. Lanjouw J. O., and Schankerman M. 2000. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition,"The RAND Journal of Economics.
26. Lanjouw, J.O., and Schankerman, M. 2011. "Characteristics of Patent Litigation: A Window on Competition," The RAND Journal of Economics, (32:1),pp. 129-151 27. Lusch,R.F. and Vargo, S. L. 2006. "Service-dominant logic: reactions,
reflections,"Marketing theory(6:3), pp. 281-288.
28. Lee, S., Geum, Y., Yoon, B., Kim M., and Shin J. 2010. "Strategic partner selection for collaborative R&D: Literature-based technology intelligence,"R&D Management Conference, June-July.
29. Murrah, M.L. 2002. "Implementing a Strategy Patent Program," LES Annual Meeting, Sept.
30. Macdonald, S. 2004. "When means become ends: considering the impact of patent strategy on innovation,"Information Economics and Policy (16), pp. 135–158 31. Machlup, F. 1958. "An Economic Review of the Patent System," Studies of the US
Patent System No. 15, US Senate Sub-committee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, USGPO, Washington DC.
32. Mossinghoff, G., and Bombelles, T. 1996. "The importance of intellectual property
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
IV
protection to the American research-intensive pharmaceutical industry,"Columbia Journal of World Business (31:1), pp. 38–48.
33. Meurer, M.J. 1989. "The Settlement of Patent Litigation," The RAND Journal of Economics (20:1), pp. 77-91.
34. Madhavan, R., Koka, B., and Prescott J. 1998. "Networks in transition: how industry events (re)shape interfirm relationships," Strategic Management Journal (19), pp. 439-459.
35. Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., and Chen, M. J. 2007. "What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field," Strategic Management Journal, (28:9), September, pp. 935-955.
36. NormannR., and Ramírez R. 1993. "From Value Chain to Value Constellation:
Designing Interactive Strategy," Harvard Business Review, (71), July-August, pp.
65-77.
37. OECD Conference. 2004. "Networks, Partnerships, Clusters and Intellectual Property Rights: Opportunities and Challenges for Innovative SMEs in a Global Economy," June.
38. Peppard, J., and Rylander, A. 2006. "From Value Chain to Value Network: Insights for Mobile Operators," European Management Journal (24:2), pp 128-141
39. Poltorak, A. I. 2011. "Patent War,"Wall Street Journal, April 5.
40. Porter, M.E. 1980. "Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors," The Free Press, New York.
41. Rivette, K. G., and Klein, D. 2000. "Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents," Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
42. Saldana, J. 2008. "An Introduction to Codes and Coding," September.
43. Smith, L. 2009. "Valuation of Intellectual Property", Current Topics in ISM.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
V
44. Silverman, A. 1990. "Intellectual property law and the venture capital process,"High Technology Law Journal (5:1), pp. 157–192.
45. S&P 500. 2006. "The power of intangible assets," April-May.
46. Stephen, R. 1976. "The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing," Journal of Economic Theory (13:3), pp. 341–360.
47. STPI. "全球 5 大廠專利交叉結盟策略鞏固 LED 市場大餅,"
available at: http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/201/pclass_11_A103.htm, retrial date: 2012-05-03.
48. STPI. "再談專利布局,"
available at: http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2008/pclass_08_A022.htm, retrial date: 2012-05-10.
49. STPI. " 利用 Google Patent 來 一 場人 類科 技發 展 虛擬 之旅 ," available at:
http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/pclass014.htm, retrial date: 2012-09-20.
50. STPI. "LED 照 明 系 統 訴 訟 ， 飛 利 浦 控 告 Nexxus Lighting," available at:
http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=7004, retrial date:
2012-09-25.
51. STPI. " 專 利 策 略 與 策 略 性 專 利 ," available at:
http://cdnet.stpi.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2008/pclass_08_A021.htm, retrial date:
2012-10-14.
52. STPI. "美國專利訴訟案件統計 (含美國國際貿易委員會 ITC337 調查及美國聯
邦 地 方 法 院 )," available at:
http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2012/pclass_12_A146.htm, retrial date: 2012-10-16.
53. Sullivan, P. H. 2000. "Value-driven Intellectual Capital: How to Convert Intangible Corporate Assets into Market Value," John Wiley & Sons, New York.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
VI
54. Todeva, E., and Knoke D. 2005. "Strategic Alliances and Models of Collaboration," Management Decision (43:1), pp.123-148.
55. U.S. 6999800. 2006. "Method for power management of a smart phone," Google Patent.
56. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. 2004. "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,"Journal of Marketing 68,January, pp.1 – 17.
57. Webster, F. 1992. "The changing role of marketing in the corporation," Journal of Marketing (56), October, pp. 1–17.
58. World Economic Forum. 2010-2011. "GlobalCompetitivenessReport".
Ziedonis, R.H. 2003. "Patent Litigation in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry,"Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, p180.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
①
Appendix
A. Sample of patent document from Google Patent
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
②
B. Sample of litigation news from STPI,
(http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=7004)
‧
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
④
D. Chinese Verbatim Raw Data
Table D-1 Chinese Verbatim Raw Data- Final Code of Proposition 1
Final Code Questions Chinese Verbatim Raw Data
Professional Support
您從智財小組的角 度怎麼看專利佈
局？
Company B
IP Team：早些年在申請專利的時候公司內部沒有專業的智財人員，所以在申請專利的時 候忽略了專利檢索的重要性。
RD：現在在產品開發過程第一件事研發就會找智財一起評估這個東西裡面有沒有可能有 競爭對手或我們相關的專利，我們是否要作專利迴避，或是我們有沒有創新的技術要作 專利的申請。
Company C
President：申請的專利很實際，非紙上談兵；目前申請專利只是協助我們，讓我們對於 專利有基本的認識。
Comprehensiveness
通常智財小組會如 何進行專利佈局？
Company B
IP Team：短期目標─消極以自己做、自己賣的技術申請專利保護；長期目標─將他人做、
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑤
他人賣的產品申請專利才是積極的價值實現。
RD：智財系統也是一年一年在精進，認證也算是專利佈局的一部分。
Company A
IP Team：考慮屬於哪個產業、產業鏈中的角色(上下游)、標準(協會)。
Circumspection
通常有哪些因素需 要考量？
Company B IP Team：
根據產品生命週期來決定是否申請專利以及需申請的專利類別
再依據產品的生產、銷售以及競爭者所在國家來決定專利佈局國別
在判斷上須要做到精準保護卻又不至於淪為氾濫
若某些國家的布局尚未明朗的情況下，可先申請台灣案，一年內可以主張 國際優先權申請國外案。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑥
Table D-2 Chinese Verbatim Raw Data- Final Code of Proposition 2
Final Code Questions Chinese Verbatim Raw Data
Strength Reflected
企業通常會如何運 用專利？
Company B
Sales：專利就是有攻擊跟防禦，攻擊就比較清楚，把一個東西踩死，一般來講攻擊面 的專利會傾向於這個產品衍生性的副產品的市場或是使用率大不大；我覺得防禦型的 比較像是談判的籌碼，就是我有一些小專利讓對手很不舒服，但這種專利無傷大雅，
只是一種騷擾的手段。
Company C
President：專利類型多為應用型專利，以現有的專利為基礎，發展出的應用。
Market Power Keeping
專利佈局對於企業 的市場有什麼影
響？
Company B
Sales：佈局是否有衍生性的副產品或者是市場很大；諸如這種比較大的關鍵專利公司 就會花心力去拿
RD：專利最重要有價值在於它能夠創造營收，這種專利造成的營收讓人會想分一杯羹，
或者是看你有沒有踩到別人的專利，如果這項專利沒有任何營收是沒有意義的，別人 根本不會在意你有沒有踩到他的專利。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑦
Company C
President：這些專利通常多拿來做保護，對於未來市場的發展上，避免有產生專利上的 衝突
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑧
Table D-3 Chinese Verbatim Raw Data- Final Code of Proposition 3
Final Code Questions Chinese Verbatim Raw Data
Leadership
企業中通常是由誰 來將專利佈局和企 業策略連結起來？
Company B
Sales：中小企業通常是由個人，大企業裡面通常會有一個 Team 來評估風險，像我們過 去研發跟業務都是由董事長在看，所以主要的方向通常是由董事長來決定。
RD：由跨單位一起共同討論，譬如說今天我們決定銷售新產品，我們就會把這些資料 提供出來，看這些資料跟整個專利佈局哪裡是有關的。
Company C
President：通常都是公司的企業主，因為對於公司的走向比較清楚，像是目前是申請國 內的，但是如果要拓展至國外的話也是跟企業主、企業的願景有關。
Common goal
把專利佈局和企業 策略做連結時有遇 到什麼困難或挑戰
嗎？
Company B
Sales：效益大不大的問題，還有一些環境的因素等等。
Company C
President：主要是要看企業當下，他覺得什麼是重要的。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑨
Company D
General Manager：主要是要考量到公司預算、效益、市場接受程度。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑩
Table D-4 Chinese Verbatim Raw Data- Final Code of Proposition 3-1 to 3-3
Final Code Questions Chinese Verbatim Raw Data
Importance
企業的專利數和專 利的申請時間等相 關時間資訊對於您 來說可以用在什麼
地方？
Company B
IP Team：專利申請就是跟競爭對手卡申請日，如果是相同的技術只要比別人早一天，
它在我之後就不可能獲准這個專利，如果我們比別人晚的話我可能就要做迴避設計；
專利的數量是公司實力的證明，也提供了一個健康的企業形象。
RD：現在有新的專利可以申請就趕快申請。
Company C
President：如果公司有智財小組的話，這些因素應該都會參考到，譬如看到其他公司提 出什麼申請，或者是其他公司還沒有做的申請我們就會快一點申請。
Company D
General Manager：時間方面主要還是會參考，要衡量多久時間申請好和生效的時間；
紙製品的專利數量並不多，所以查詢上比較好查。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑪
Reference
專利的有效性和訴 訟的地點對於您來 說可以用在什麼地
方？
Company B
IP Team：專利是屬地主義，會選擇對自己有利的地方進行訴訟，可能在那個地方大量 蒐證到對手有在銷售的證據，因為專利走到訴訟就是想要對方的損害賠償，你賣得越 多就要賠償得越多，所以可能就會去找出對手製造銷售量大的地區作為訴訟的地點對 我們才是有利的。
Legal Commissioner：如果一開始專利無效就直接到智財局提舉發就不會走到訴訟。
Company C
President：通常是自己公司所屬地方是對自己最有利。
Company D
General Manager：以有利的地點作為訴訟是最好的，專利如果是我的就會以我們有利 的位置來做考量，如果是對方的當然對方會選擇對他們有利的地點。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
⑫
Index
對手的訴訟歷史和 公司的排名是否也 是對於競爭者企業 的參考指標之一
呢？
Company B
Company B