2007 年1 月9 日的MacWorld 活動中，Apple 公司的執行長在其每一屆Macworld 活動都會給予的演說 (Keynote) 中，介紹了一款Apple 公司最新的、具革命性的研究成果－iPhone。iPhone 隨及引爆了話題，並在2007 年 7 月上市時引爆了搶購熱潮，這是第一款能讓手機廠商和營運商分享利潤的手機，也是極少數的一款毛利高達50%以上的手機，更直接影響了整個手機產業。本研究從iPhone 的產品、技術探討iPhone 包含軟體、硬體的研發成果暨智慧財產，從商品化與商業模式的角度試圖討論Apple 公司如何以手機產業的新進入者而推出高附加價值的手機並在短時間內建立品牌，進而與營運商分享利潤，更以手機廠商的身份建立內容服務平台而創造高價值。最後，本研究將總結Apple 公司iPhone 研發成果與智慧財產的商品化與商業模式，以及iPhone 為產業帶來的衝擊，並給予台灣廠商幾點建議，僅供參考。 / In the Keynote of Macworld 2007 on January 9th, Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple Company introduced the latest and revolutionary product of Apple Company whitch is actually a mobile phone, and its name is iPhone. The term“iPhone” was getting hot soon. On Junly 29th, iPhone was onto the market, and its sales soared in the market. No doubt, iPhone is the first phone earns Apple the shared revenue from mobile operater, a very small number of phones with a more-than-50% profit margin rate, and a phone changes the whole communication industry. This article starts from the product structure and technology view of iPhone, and then tries to discuss the commercialization and the business model of iPhone. It would try to probe into the key elements of the commercial success of iPhone, including the high value-added product feature, the branding of iPhone, the innovated platform providing contents and services to iPhone user, and the cooperation and revenue share with mobile operators. Finally, the article would summarize the Research on the Commercialization and Business Model of R&D results and Intellectual Properties of Apple iPhone with an additional discuss on the impact that iPhone brings to the communication industry, then give some suggestions to the Taiwan companies.

學術研究機構向來是科技創新的主要動力來源，許多與人類生活息息相關的發明多半來自於學術研究機構此一孕育創新的搖籃。此外，一個國家的學術研究能量往往也反映了該國的技術能力與競爭力，因此世界各國無不投注大量資源於大專院校及研究機構，期望除了學術產出之外，亦能將原始的創新概念透過研發活動轉化為智慧財產，並進一步將其商業化，滿足市場需求，實現知識之最大價值。 我國之學術研究能量並不落於美、歐、日等主要技術領先國之後，從我國政府投注於學術研發活動之經費、歷年發表於SCI、EI等期刊論文以及取得美國專利之數量等科技發展成果指標便可說明此點，然我國於1999年通過與美國拜杜法案意義相當之科技基本法至今已滿九年，各學研機構之專利申請量雖有成長之勢，然而2007年實際之智慧財產權收益卻僅佔研發總投入費用的0.87%；2005年全國技術貿易額收支比僅達0.23，與美、日、英等國相較，實可謂差強人意，顯見我國在研發成果商業化上已面臨一定瓶頸。 在知識大爆炸方興未艾的二十一世紀，可以預見的是將有越來越多的研發成果持續產出，學研機構花費於取得並維護智慧財產之費用亦將持續提高，如何在產出的眾多研發成果及專利中，篩選出真正有商業化潛力之標的，以將有限的人力、時間、資金等資源投注於其上並轉化為實質的經濟效益，將是學研機構進行研發成果商業化時的重要課題；此外，在學研機構法人化之潮流下，若未來大學等學研單位須自行負擔大部份資金之籌措時，此一評估機制將更顯重要。另，在資訊高度不對稱的情況下，技術需求方難以辨認技術供給方之技術是否為適合之交易標的，因此若能建立一套商業化可行性評估機制，亦能使雙方間之資訊交流更為順暢，促進技術之移轉與商業化。 因此，本研究嘗試提出一研發成果商業化可行性評估機制，以供學研機構進行內部評估，使國內「悶住」的研發能量得以透過有效的評估機制而活化。又，由於不同科技領域所適用之商業化可行性評估方式將有所差異，而生物科技領域為二十一世紀科技發展中之重要領域，且列為政府政策下的重點發展產業之一，加以作者本身之相關學經歷背景，是以本研究選擇生物科技領域研發成果為討論之重點。 本研究分別從5W的角度來探討研發成果商業化可行性之評估機制，分別是進行商業化可行性評估之目的(Why)、進行商業化可行性評估之時點(When)、商業化可行性評估之執行者(Who)、評估所需資訊之取得(How)以及進行商業化可行性評估時所需考量之因素(What)，最後建立一研發成果商業化可行性評估機制，作為本研究之核心概念以及後續個案探討之依據。 此外，本研究針對研發成果商業化可行性評估之各項構面進行介紹，並提出學研機構於進行評估時在各構面應考量之重要項目與問題。依所建立之評估機制與架構流程，將評估構面分為技術、智慧財產、市場、法規與財務五大構面，並以技術與智慧財產構面為探討之重點。 由於本研究之研究對象為學術研究機構，且以生物科技領域為重心，故由大專院校、基礎研究機構及應用研究機構中各挑選一具代表性之單位作為個案研究對象，分別為國立陽明大學、中央研究院以及財團法人工業技術研究院，透過與各機構之研發成果管理專責單位進行訪談，深入了解其運作機制與現況，以期綜覽各類型學研機構之研發成果商業化可行性評估機制，並得出研究發現及建議。 根據個案研究之發現，本研究對於國內學研機構之整體建議，主要包括：研發成果商業化可行性評估機制應依機構之目的、性質、智財管理現況加以擬定；研發成果商業化可行性評估之構面應配合研發成果之性質及開發階段而設定，並以技術構面為基礎，智財構面為樞紐連結市場與法規構面之評估，最後以財務構面進行統合；而學研機構若欲採外部審查方式執行評估工作，須考量可能之缺失；此外，研發成果商業化可行性之評估應由具備跨領域能力之團隊加以執行，並應使具備產業經驗與市場背景之人員有一定程度之涉入；再者，生物科技領域研發成果因其本質上之特殊性，故於進行商業化可行性評估時，有諸多因素需加以考量；最後，政府可主動協助建立專業之機構或團隊，提供學研機構進行研發成果商業化可行性評估甚至後續之技術行銷服務，以有效符合規模經濟、範疇經濟與專業、客觀之考量。 / Academic and research institutes are the origins of technology innovation. Many of the significant inventions were devised in these cradles of innovation. Academic and research power can often indicates the technology capability and competency of a nation. Every government invests vast resources to universities and research institutes in order not only to make academic publication but also to realize the maximum value of the knowledge through converting the innovative ideas into intellectual properties (IP) and further commercializing the R&D achievements to meet the market needs. The academic researches in Taiwan can compete with the technological leading countries such as the U.S, Japan, and E.U. countries, in terms of some science and technology indicators like R & D expenditure, SCI / EI publications, and the number of U.S. patent granted. Nevertheless, the actual revenue generated by IP in 2007 was only account for 0.87% of the total R&D input and the coverage ratio of technology balance of payments was only 0.23 in 2005. The fact indicates that there were some barriers on the path of R&D commercialization in Taiwan. In the 21st century of knowledge explosion, it is predictable that more and more R&D achievements will be generated from academic institutes and the expenses devoted to the acquisition and protection of IP will keep rising. Therefore, it will become a critical issue in academic institutes to sieve out the targets of the higher commercial potential from numerous R&D results and patents so as to concentrate the time, human and financial resources on those targets for its further commercialization. Moreover, under the highly asymmetrical information situation during the technology trading, technology buyers have difficulty in identifying whether the technology is a suitable trading target or not. A well-established feasibility evaluation mechanism will also stimulate the interflow of information and promote the technology transfer and commercialization. Accordingly, this thesis will try to establish a feasibility evaluation mechanism (FEM) for commercialization of R&D achievements in academic institutes in order to activate the stuffy R&D energy in Taiwan. Biotechnology is one of the most important fields of technology in the 21st century and thus be the main concern of the discussion of this thesis. This thesis will investigate the feasibility evaluation mechanism for commercialization of R&D achievements on a “5W” basis, including the purposes of evaluation (why), the time of evaluation (when), the executives of evaluation (who), the information needed in the evaluation process (how), and the factors that should be taken into consideration in the evaluation process (what). Accordingly, a feasibility evaluation mechanism for commercialization of R&D achievements will be established as the central concept of this study and as the ground of follow-up case analysis. In addition, each aspects of feasibility evaluation as well as the significant issues and questions of each aspect will be illustrated in this study. According to the feasibility evaluation mechanism and framework established in this study, there are five main evaluation aspects including the technical aspect, intellectual property aspect, market aspect, legal aspect, and financial aspect. The main subjects of this study were the academic institutes in biotechnology field in Taiwan, the National Yang-Ming University, the Academia Sinica, and the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI). These institutes are chosen as the subjects of case study standing respectively for the higher education institute, basic research institute, and the applied research institute. By way of interviewing the personnel of R&D achievements and IPR management department in the institutes in question, the feasibility evaluation mechanism implemented by different types of academic institutes was investigated to delineate the key findings, followed up with some practical advices. The overall advices proposed by this study for the academic institutes in Taiwan were summarized as follows: (1) The feasibility evaluation mechanism for commercialization of R&D achievements should be devised in accordance with the purpose, the nature, and the IP management status of each institute. (2) The feasibility evaluation should be set to match up the development stage of the R&D achievements and take the technical aspect as the groundwork, IP aspect as the pivot connecting to the market and legal aspect, and the financial aspect as an integrated result. (3) Evaluation executed by external parties may be of some defects that should be taken into consideration. (4) The feasibility evaluation for R&D commercialization should be executed by multi-disciplinary team and the industry-experienced or market personnel should as well participate in the evaluation process. (5) Due to the characteristics of biotechnology, many special factors should be involved in the evaluation process. (6) The government may actively assist in setting up a professional organization or team to provide feasibility evaluation and even the further technology marketing services to meet the consideration of economies of scale/ scope, specialty, and objectivity.

『智慧財產』是二十一世紀世界產業競爭的決勝關鍵。智慧財產的佈局、產出及保護固然非常重要，但是最終還是需要積極的運用，發揮智慧財產這種無形資產獨有之國際性、重複利用性及同時異地併行使用實施之特性，彰顯其最大化之價值。世界各國政府在積極建置各種政策手段提升智慧財產運用之同時，也考慮到自身國家安全及國內產業競爭力消長之影響，大多規範了一系列智慧財產輸出到國境之外的運用管制。智慧財產之積極運用與境外實施管制，是兩種截然不同，有時甚至是互相衝突之面向，需要有清晰的觀念，才能建置雙贏策略，讓國內產業在決勝關鍵所向無敵。 我國科技基本法自民國88年公佈實施以來已有十年。智慧財產的產出、保護及運用在這十年間突飛猛進。雖然如此，但是仍有許多配套措施及觀念尚未成熟的建立起來。對於彰顯及發揮智慧財產價值所面對之『境外實施管制機制』更是有相對檢視之急迫性。在『國際技術移轉制度理論與實務』（王偉霖、劉江彬 著，2010年9月初版）劉江彬教授序中，劉教授特別指出這一點，認為應該突破其限制。我國在智慧財產方面之創新管理成就，中國也在快速學習，急起直追，從中國十二五計畫之政策可以看出他們更在發揚創新商業化之投資，學習我們企業的經營哲學。台灣有相當多的創新能量，蘊含智慧財產運用之潛力，政府可以從更宏觀的角度思考，發揮台灣的『軟實力』，實現台灣的願景。 本研究針對經濟事務財團法人研究機構，於政府資助產出之專利權在中華民國管轄區域外使用實施所需要事前陳報政府主管機關核准之規定嘗試提出更有效率之管理機制。 本研究比較美國、日本、大陸及台灣之政府資助產出之成果下放、技術出口管制、技術與投資境外實施管制相關法規之規範與作法，並訪問各國極具智慧財產管理運用代表性之組織--Association of University Technology Manager (AUTM) 及Licensing Executive Society (LES) 總會之會長、美國Stanford University技轉辦公室主任、美國前University of Washington負責技術移轉之副校長、日本東京大學技轉辦公室主任、前新加坡大學之技轉辦公室主任、徐小波大律師、台灣積體電路股份有限公司負責技術移轉之法務處宿文堂處長、政治大學商學院智慧財產研究所王偉霖教授及我國技術服務業之宇東公司副執行長等在智慧財產授權領域之產官學研專家學者，彙整歸納他們之看法及筆者之意見。再綜整工業技術研究院過去十年來向經濟部提出境外實施申請之案件，以三案不同技術、授權模式及授權區域之案件為案例探討。對照經濟部投資業務處對於我國境外投資之管理規範及審核要項，對於經濟部技術處目前審核境外實施作業，分析實務操作面之問題所在，進而提出『分類分級管理』之構想。視專利權之技術內容及授權模式，將審查作業分為高度管理、低度管理及事後報備。希望未來境外實施之管制也能夠兼顧行政成本降低、多元化彈性模式及商機時效。 本研究分別對政府及申請人提出建議，並由微觀到鉅觀，對我國智慧財產落實運用之全面性結構問題提出後續可繼續研究之議題供參。 對於政府處理其出資產出之成果的境外實施管制，建議涉及國家安全之技術輸出可比照國際作法採取『高度管理』。對於不涉及國家安全之智慧財產境外實施可採『低度管理』。同時建立具體明確可預期之審理標準、流程及正面或負面表列之技術清單。專利之非專屬授權及已經經過政府相關單位審核者，建議可採『事後報備』簡化流程。進一步考量規劃逐步建立企業及研發機構境外實施『自主管理』機制。至於境外實施之對價應回歸『商業談判』之市場機制，政府不需過多干涉。最後建議加強政府承辦人員對於智慧財產管理運用理論及實務認識之訓練。 在目前政府『境外實施』機制尚未調整之前，本研究綜整過去工業技術研究院申請境外實施之經驗，對於申請人提出建議作法，希望有助於審查流程之加速。事前與政府機關承辦人多溝通有絕對必要，充分瞭解其關切之事項，並備妥相關之文件。要求境外實施之廠商直接向政府承辦機關關切不必然有助於加速審核流程，有時反而弄巧反拙，造成承辦人之困擾，相對的攪亂了審核的節奏。 『境外實施』僅為提升智慧財產運用的一個點，必須要達到數個點的突破，形成面的結構調整，後續仍然有相當多的議題需要繼續研究，提出解決方案。例如修改科技基本法以明確擴大適用之層面至政府相關研究機關及學校—如中央研究院、公立大學等。這些機關是政府單位智慧財產之重要生產者，與下放之執行機構一樣，需突破國有財產法及政府採購法以發揮智慧財產之價值，但是同時適用之政府機關應配套建立智慧財產管理及評鑑機制。本研究以經濟事務研究機構之境外實施為限，其他仍然有教育體系之學校及經濟事務以外之研究機構之境外實施制度值得一窺。 本研究參酌世界各國之作法，搭配本研究生多年在工研院之經驗，檢視目前我國之實務運作，以學術討論之立場，結合實務與理論，嘗試提出一些看法，希望能夠提供給政府宏觀的思考，構建更契合打造台灣為亞洲樞紐之願景的機制。但本研究之所有論述純屬本研究生之個人觀點，不代表工研院或其他任何機構與單位之立場。 / “Intellectual Property” is the key factor to winning the industrial competition among competitive countries in the twenty-first century. Although domestic products and well-protected intellectual property are both extremely important, intellectual property should ultimately be used actively in order to maximize its core value. While governments around the world enthusiastically harness a variety of policy instruments to actively promote the use of intellectual property, they also take into account the security and competitiveness of their nations’ own domestic industries, as well as the impact of growth and decline on their economy. With these concerns, most of the intellectual property outputs are regulated by a series of overseas licensing restrains. The active usage of intellectual property and the control over overseas licensing are issues that are usually mutually independent. However, they sometimes conflict with each other. Only a clear and thorough understanding of both topics can allow one to establish a well-rounded strategy that creates a win-win situation in reference to the relationship between overseas licensing and domestic products. The Fundamental Science and Technology Act of the Republic of China has been in effect for a decade since its original ratification. Even so, there are still a lot of support measures and concepts established by the Act that have yet to be fully developed. For example, the “Overseas Licensing” control mechanism within the Act is an important measure that has received minimal development, and is in urgent need of having its political limitations removed for it to become more effective. This study compares United States, Japan, China and Taiwan’s export controls and overseas licensing laws. By visiting leaders of those intellectual property management representative organizations - -Association of University Technology Manager (AUTM) and Licensing Executive Society (LES), Director of the United States Stanford University Technology Transfer Office, former Vice President responsible for technology transfer of University of Washington, Director of Technology Transfer Office of University of Tokyo, Ex-Director of the Office of Technology Transfer of University of Singapore, Professor Paul S. P. Hsu, Chairman & CEO of PHYCOS International Co., Ltd, Director of Legal Transactions of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., National Chengchi University Institute of Intellectual Property Business School Professor Wang Weilin and Vice President of Tanspercific IP Ltd. , the study summarized views and opinions of these professionals . The author analyzed overseas licensing cases that Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) applied over the last decade in their technology, business model, and licensing area. Using the analysis of the practical problems in the overseas licensing control regulations and rules under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the author proposed a concept of “classification management” ideas. According to this concept, the technical content of patent rights and licensing models and their management will be reviewed in three different levels, including high degree management, low degree management and post-filing. In the future, the costs of administration, the diversity of business models, and the flexibility in time should be considered in all cases of overseas licensing. The overseas licensing control that is related to national security should take a “high degree of management”. The rest of which do not involve national security can be reviewed under a “low degree of management”. Non-exclusive patent license and the case which has already been reviewed by any government agencies under the overseas licensing control should be reviewed under “post-filing management” to simplify the process. Furthermore, government should consider the gradual establishment of self-management mechanism as an “Internal Control Program” in the industry and research institute. Without excessive government interference, the terms and considerations of an overseas licensing should return to” commercial market negotiations mechanism”. Government administrators who are involved in the intellectual property management affairs need to strengthen their knowledge, vision and experiences in the field of intellectual property by training courses. This study further points out several topics related to the need of follow-up studies which include extending the entity who can apply under the Fundamental Science and Technology Act to governmental natural research institutes and schools - such as Academia Sinica, public universities and so on in order to break through the National Property Act and the Government Procurement Law for getting more freedom and flexibility in Intellectual property management. Since this study focuses on Economic Affairs related overseas licensing control system, fields that are outside of this area such as educational system and other Minister which might have the same issue is worth a glimpse. This study is based on the experiences that author had when working in ITRI and the general practice in overseas licensing field, trying to raise view point from broader angle for government’s consideration. Every view point raised under this study is the observation of the author himself purely which does not represent or reflect ITRI’s thoughts whatsoever.