新經濟體系的來臨，以技術為基礎的新創科技公司如雨後春筍般的出現，這些新創科技公司的價值已非過去龐大的有形資產，取而代之的是無形資產，如專利權、商標權、著作權、授權契約或公司的研發團隊等，然而傳統的財務報表係儘反映公司過去的財務狀況和經營成果，對於自行研發而非外購的智慧財產權，卻無法認列在財務報表上，使得公司的價值被嚴重低估，有潛力的公司無法獲得所需資金而功敗垂成，十分可惜。 本研究係以實際經營管理的觀點切入，探討以智慧財產權做為融資擔保標的時所會遭遇到的困難為何？再經由所得知的實際困難找出智慧財產權融資所需營運機制和可行之營運模式。 由於智慧財產權融資大部份的風險都處於資金供給方，因此融資可行與否大致上都決定於資金供給者必須在那些條件具備的情況下才願意接受以智慧財產權做擔保的融資模式，因此本研究主要探討的問題從資金供給者的角度出發，主要研究的資金供給對象為國內銀行和創業投資公司。 透過次級文獻蒐集、集體焦點訪談、個別訪談和郵寄問卷等方法得到主要發現如下： 一、國外智慧財產權融資尚在起步階段，且西方國家與東方國家有關智慧財產權的營運模式皆不盡相同。 二、國內缺乏智慧財產權融資實際個案，雖然有關智慧財產權融資擔保有其基本法源可茲適用，但相關配套法規欠缺。 三、國內創業投資公司多以整體性評估新創科技公司，除少數新創科技公司（如生物科技公司）外，智慧財產並非單一關鍵性考量因素。 四、智慧財產權融資模式對創業投資公司有其間接性影響，其中有關鑑價機制和技術交易市場為創業投資公司所關切重點。 五、國內傳統銀行以利差為主要獲利來源之營運特性使智慧財產權融資高風險之融資形式不易為銀行所接受。 六、銀行本身缺乏智慧財產權鑑價能力和管理能力，此為銀行承做智慧財產權融資首要解決之務。 七、銀行傾向以政府保證的方式來進行智慧財產權融資，以降低本身所承擔風險。 八、以目前整體的環境而言，智慧財產權融資在智慧財產權觀念上、鑑價機制、管理能力、交易市場和法令規範等方面有著許多實行上的困難有待解決。 由以上可知智慧財產權融資以目前各方面的環境而言具有高風險性，其可行性的營運模式建議分為短期和長期來看： 一、初期營運模式： 1、初期政府可用保證基金的形式來分散資金供給者的風險。 2、初期可先透過國外的鑑價機制和交易市場來進行。 二、遠期營運模式： 建立具有國際化的鑑價機構和交易市場，根據「契約自由化」原則，只要交易雙方對於契約內容達成一致性的決議，則交易即可完成，以促進自由市場高流動性的運作。 關鍵字：智慧財產權融資、新創科技公司、創業投資公司、銀行、鑑價機制、技術交易市場、信用保證基金、關鍵要素。 / By the coming of the new economy, high-tech start-ups are mushrooming like bamboo shoots after a spring rain. The value of high-tech start-ups does not base on hard assets, but of their principal assets. The principal assets contain both the intangible assets and intellectual property right (IPR), such as patent, trademark, copyright, license contract as well as R&D team. However, traditional financial statements record only the past financial profile and operating results of companies. They've invested large amount of money on R&D, and therefore, to obtain the IPR. But the right obtained can not be shown on the financial statements. As a result, a large number of high-tech start-ups are underestimated, and unfortunately, most of the potential high-tech start-ups were not able to survive due to the inability to find the fund needed. From the view of the practical operating management, this study discusses problems that should be confronted when operating the financing IPR. Moreover, according to the problems found, the study anticipates by offering the operating mechanism and feasible business models for financing IPR. As we know, the majority of risk lies in the fund suppliers when financing IPR, so mostly the feasibility of financing IPR depends on fund suppliers that will receive IPR as collateral under a certain number requirements possessed. Thus, the study will then offer suggestions mainly in terms of fund suppliers, and the focus will be on domestic banks and venture capitalists. Based on the literature review, group focus interview, individuall interview, posted survey and so on are conducted for the study. Some of insights are derived as bellow: 1. For overseas countries, the financing IPR is just at the beginning period. There are differences in the business models of financing IPR between western countries and eastern countries. 2. There are few real cases about financing IPR in Taiwan although there are some basic laws to apply for financing IPR. Nevertheless, more related regulations are needed. 3. Most of the venture capitalists evaluate high-tech start-ups in an overall way. Hence, excluding a small numbers of high-tech start-ups such as bio-tech companies, IPR is not the only key evaluation factor. 4. The model of financing IPR has an indirect influence to venture capitalists. They emphasize more on the valuation mechanism and the technology marketplace. 5. The profit of traditional banks in Taiwan comes from the interest. From the conservative operating system, these banks are hard to accept the financing IPR that is with high risk. 6. The domestic banks are in short of the IPR valuation and IPR management capabilities. Thus, these problems should first be solved, and then the financing IPR will be able to be taken into action. 7. The domestic banks are in favor of reducing risk by getting guarantee from the government. 8. In terms of the whole financial environment in Taiwan, there are lots of difficulties in the concepts of IPR, valuation mechanism, management capability, technology marketplace, laws and decrees and so forth to be confronted. Above all, financing IPR has high risk in Taiwan at the moment. Therefore, this paper recommends that feasible business models of financing IPR should be divided as follow: 1. Short-run business model: (1) Diversify the risk of the fund suppliers from the guarantee fund offered by the government. (2) Finance IPR by foreign valuation mechanism and technology marketplace. 2. Long-run business model: First, more efforts should be put to set up our own international valuation institutions and technology marketplace. Second, the financing IPR should be taken by contract liberalization principle in compliance with the mechanism of the free market. When both sides agree to the contract, then the deal will be done. By doing so,the IPR financing will be highly promoted at the same time. Key words: Financing IPR, High-tech Start-ups, Venture Capitalists, Domestic Banks, Valuation Mechanism, Technology Marketplace, Credit Guarantee Fund, Key factors.