Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/64380
|
| Title: | TWTM技術交易市場的使用者分析 ─國立大學案例研究
An User Analysis of Taiwan Technology Marketplace (TWTM)-Case Studies of Public Universities |
| Authors: | 盧憶
Lu, Yi |
| Contributors: | 許牧彥
Hsu, Mu Yen
盧憶
Lu, Yi |
| Keywords: | TWTM技術交易市場
動態合作
國立大學技轉中心
Taiwan Technology Marketplace (TWTM)
Dynamic Cooperation
Technology transfer office in public university |
| Date: | 2013 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-03-03 15:40:32 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究之目的在於探討TWTM的使用者-國立大學使用TWTM技術交易市場的情形以及從國立大學與TWTM技術交易市場的互動過程中試圖了解國立大學使用或不使用TWTM的背後原因。
為探究上述之目的，方法上透過次級資料的分析與實際採訪國立大學技術移轉中心來達成。首先透過TWTM技術交易市場的資料與中華民國專利資料庫的資料來做比對，發現98年至99年共有13間國立大學將其發明專利上傳至TWTM，然而100至101年則僅有5間上傳，顯示出國立大學在使用TWTM上有下降的趨勢，並同時針對以上資料來做採訪對象的選擇。本研究共選擇採訪了5間國立大學與工研院，發現TWTM與國立大學的互動過程中TWTM僅單純寄送電子報或是發函邀請各國立大學，然而國立大學對於TWTM的邀請反應均不一致。
本研究最後從國立大學與TWTM動態合作模式中發現，造成國立大學對TWTM反應不一致的原因可能跟國立大學能否察覺TWTM的服務、或是與國立大學是否有動機或誘因去使用，以及國立大學自己是否有資源與能力來使用TWTM等三個主要原因有密切關係。
The purpose of this study is to find out the users in Taiwan Technology Marketplace (TWTM)-public universities about how they use TWTM services and to understand the reasons why they have been or they have not been using TWTM services in the process of the dynamic interaction between public universities and TWTM.
In order to approach the purpose, the study collects the data from Taiwan Patent Database and TWTM to do the comparative analysis. We find that only 13 public universities used TWTM services during 2008 to 2009, and 5 public universities used TWTM services during 2010 to 2011. This statistics reveal that the percentage of using TWTM service is declining and 6 interviewees are chosen from this statistics.
After finishing the interview, the study finds that TWTM only sends the invitation mail to all the public university while the interviewees have different reactions to respond that invitation.
From the analysis of dynamic cooperation between TWTM and public universities, this study finds the reasons why public universities have been or have not been using TWTM services. First, TWTM services are lack of awareness to the public universities so that the public universities cannot figure out what benefits they can get. Second, public universities are lack of motivation to use TWTM services because there are few successful cases provided by TWTM services. Last but not least, whether public universities have been using TWTM services are closely related to how many resources allocated to the technology transfer office and capability about how to use TWTM services accumulated among the office. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部分
1. 行政院經濟部 (2009)，發明專利產業化推動方案，頁9-10。
2. 朱敬一 (2010)，『台灣科技基本法改進方向之研議』，科技基本法10週年回顧與展望研討會。
3. 周延鵬 (2010)，智慧財產權全球行銷獲利聖經，台北：天下文化
4. 張彬彬 (2010)，『台灣智慧財產權交易市場及創新中介服務之研究 - 以工研院為例』，國立交通大學管理科學所博士學位論文。
5. 陳誠傳 (2007)，『專利權交易平台之現況探討與研究』，逢甲大學經營管理學院碩士論文。
6. 陳明哲 (Ming-Jer Chen) 著，蘇國賢審訂， 林豪傑、喬友慶、侯勝宗 翻釋與整理，2008。”動態競爭”。台北：智勝。
7. 許張原 (2004)，『技術交易平台運作機制之研究』，中原大學資管系碩士學位論文。
8. 康琦 (2006)，『論大學之科技研發成果與智慧財產權之運用-以專利管理為核心之探討』，國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。
9. 許舜喨 (2012)，『從新修訂之科學技術基本法看我國科技法制的變革』，社團法人國家生技醫療產業策進會專題報告。
10. 曾嘉良 (2012)，『技術移轉模式分析與實驗-以專利交易為例』，中原大學企管系研究所碩士學位論文。
11. 葛孟堯 (2010)，『影響我國大學技術移轉績效因素之研究』，政大科管所博士學位論文 。
12. 楊擴舉 (2003)，『建構技術交易中心制度之研究』，台灣大學法律學研究所碩士學位論文。
13. 經濟部工業局 (2010)，智慧財產價值創造計畫，頁9-13
14. 劉江彬 (2010)，『美國拜度法案與台灣科技基本法之比較：過去十年檢討與未來十年因應』，科技基本法10週年回顧與展望研討會論文集。
二、英文部分
1. Alan, S. (2006). Entry costs and stock market participation over the life cycle. Review of Economic Dynamics, 9 , 588-611.
2. Andersen, B, Rossi, F (2011a) UK Universities look beyond the patent policy discourse in their intellectual property strategies. Science and Public Policy, 38 (3).
3. Andersen, B, Rossi, F (2011b) Intellectual Property Governance and Knowledge Creation in UK Universities, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, forthcoming.
4. Arrow, K. (1985). Economic Welfare and Allocation of Resources for Invention. In K. Arrow(Ed), Production and Capital. Cambridge: 104-119. MA: Belknap Press.
5. Arthur, W.B. (2007). The Structure of Invention.Research Policy, 36:274-287
6. AUTM. (2002). Licensing Survey: FY 2000. Baltimore University, The Association of Technology Managers Inc.
7. Axelrod, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation . Basic Books, New York
8. Baldini, N. (2008) Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence, Scientometrics, Vol. 75, No. 2, 289–311.
9. Breznitz, S., O`Shea R.P., Allen, T.J.. (2008). University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 25(2):129-142.
10. Benink, H. A. & Schmidt, R. H. (2004). Europe’s single market for financial services: views by the European Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee. Journal of Financial Stability, 1, 157-198.
11. Bieling, H.-J. (2001). Social forces in the making on the new European Economy: the case of financial market integration. Seventh Workshop on Alternative Economic Policy in Europe at the Free University of Brussels.28.-30.09
12. Brouwer, E. and Kleinknecht, A. (1999) ‘Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent. An exploration of CIS micro data’, Research Policy, 28, pp.615-24.
13. Bulut, H. and Moschini, G. (2006) US universities’ net returns from patenting and licensing: a quantile regression analysis, Working Paper 06-WP432, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.
14. Charles, D. and Conway, C. (2001) Higher education – Business interaction survey, Higher Education Funding Council for England, London.
15. Chen, M.-J. (1996). "Competitor analysis and interfirm rivalry: Toward a theoretical integration." Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 100-134.
16. Chen, M.-J., K. H. Su, et al. (2007). "Competitive tension: The awareness-motivation-capability perspective." Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 101-118.
17. Cockburn, I., (2007). Is the Market for Technology Working? Obstacles to Licensing Inventions, and Ways to Reduce Them, Working Paper prepared for the conference on Economics of Technology policy, Monte Verita’, June
18. Comerton-Forde, C. & Rydge, J. (2006). The current state of Asia-Pacific stock exchanges: A critical review of market design. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal , 14, 1 32.
19. D’Este, P. and Perkmann M. (2007) Why do academics collaborate with industry? A study of the relationship between motivations and channels of interaction, paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, 18-20 June.
20. Dore, R. (1992) Goodwill and the Spirit of Market Capitalism. In The Sociology of Economic Life , ed. Swedberg, R.ichard, and Granovetter, Mark, pp. 159-180. Westview, Boulder etc.
21. Dutta, Soumitra, Kwan, Stephen & Segev, Arie 1998, ‘Business Transformation in Electronic Commerce: A Study of Sectoral and Regional Trends’, European Management Journal, 16, 5, 540-551
22. Feldman, M., Stewart, I. (2006) Knowledge Transfer and Innovation: A Review of the Policy Relevant Literature, Paper Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.
23. Fraunhofer MOEZ (2011), Creating a Financial Market for IPR final report, pp. 50-71.
24. Freeman, C. (1994) The economics of technical change. Cambridge Journal of Economics , Vol. 18, pp. 463-514
25. Geuna, A., Nesta, L.J.J. (2006) University patenting and its effects on academic 26 research: the emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35, 790–807.
26. Geuna, A., Muscio, A., (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature, Minerva 47(1): 93-114.
27. Geuna, A., Rossi, F. (2010), Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting, Department of Economics “Salvatore Cognetti de Martiis” Working Paper Series n.15/2010
28. Ghafele & Gibert (2011), The Transaction Cost Benefits of Eletronic Patent Licensing Platform: A Discussion of Example of PatenBooks Model, MPRA Paper No.36010, available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36010/
29. Henry Chesbrough (2006), Open Business Models: how to thrive in the new innovateon landscape, Harvard Business School Press, pp. 134-136
30. Hagiu & Yoffie (2013), The New Patent Intermediaries: Platforms, Deffensive Aggregators and Super-Aggregators, Journal of Economics of Perspective, Vol. 27. No.1,Winter 2013, pp45-66.
31. Hansen, Gerd, et Albrecht Schmidt Bischoffshausen (2007). « Economic Functions of Collecting Societies-Collective Rights Management in the Light of Transaction Cost-and Information Economics ».
32. Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The Patent Paradox Revisited : An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32: 101-128
33. Harabi, N., (1995) Appropriability of technical innovations: an empirical analysis. Research Policy 24, pp. 981–992.
34. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. The American Economic Review, 35:519-530
35. Howells, J. (1996). Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8: 91-106
36. Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J. (2004) Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
37. Kelly (2011), Practicing in the Patent Marketplace, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.78, Issue 1, Winter 2011, pp116-137
38. Kenney, M., Patton, D. (2009) Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model, Research Policy, 38: 1407-1422.
39. Lemley & Nyhrvold (2008), How to Make a Patent Market, Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 36, p. 257, 2008
40. Levin, R. (1986) ‘A new look at the patent system’, American Economic Review, 76, 2, pp.199-202.
41. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S., Gilbert, R., and Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3.
42. Macdonald, S. (2009) Seducing the goose: patenting by UK universities, University of Sheffield.
43. Machlup, F. 1984. The Economics of information and Human Captal. Prinston, NJ: Prinstion
44. Mard, M. J, S. Hyden, et J. S Rigby Jr. 2000. « Intellectual property valuation ». The Financial Valuation Group.
45. Merges, R. and R. Nelson (1994). "On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decisions." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 25: 1-24.
46. Mowery, D., Sampat, B. (2005) The Baye-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for other OECD Governments?” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30: 115-127.
47. Nelson, R.R. (2004) The market economy and scientific commons, Research Policy (33) 455-471
48. Rappert, Brian, Webster, Andrew and David Charles. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy. 28: 873-90.
49. R. H. Coase. (1937), “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 16. (Nov., 1937), pp. 386-405.
50. Richter, R., and Furubotn, E. (1996) Neue Institutionenökonomik - Eine Einführung und kritische Würdigung . Mohr, Tübingen
51. Rivette, K. and Kline, D. (2000) Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. MA: Harvard Business School University Press.
52. Rosenberg, N. (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc
53. .Schacht, W. (2005) The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the Commercialization of Technology, CRS Report for US Congress.
54. Sherr (2012), Developemet in the Patent Transaction Environment, LexisNexis Research Soultion, Aug. 2012
55. Somaya, D., et D. Teece. (2001). « Combining Patent Inventions in Multi-Invention Products: Transactional Challenges and Organizational Choices ». University of California at Berkeley Working Paper.
56. Tang, P., Wecowska, D., Campos, A., Hobday, M. (2009) Managing Intellectual Property in Universities: Patents and the Protection Failure Problem, Report prepared for the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
57. Teece (2000), Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: The Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context,” Long Range Planning, 33:1 (2000), 35-54.
58. Troy, I., & Werle, R. (2008b). Uncertainty and the market for patent, MplfG Working paper, vol. 08/2. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
59. Wang (2010), Rice of Patent Intermediaries, Berkerly Technology Law Jouurnal, Vol. 25:159, pp.159-200
60. Yanagisawa & Guellec, (2009). "The Emerging Patent Marketplace," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/9, OECD Publishing.
三、網站
1. TAEUS, http://www.taeus.com/
2. TWTM網站資訊, https://www.twtm.com.tw/Web/index.aspx
3. 行政院教育部網站, http://univ.edu.tw/
4. 經濟部智財局網站, http://www.tipo.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=1 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
100361015
102 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100361015 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101501.pdf | 7630Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1480 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
