台灣的產業型態已逐漸由勞力密集的傳統產業轉型為知識密集的科技產業，已成為資訊電子生產大國，共有十多項資訊設備佔有率高居世界第一。而我國以中小企業為主的產業結構，研發經費的投入往往無法與國外大廠相比，產學研合作研發便成為我國產業創新中相當重要的一個環節，大學與研發機構在研發創新上的成果是提升產業技術水準的重要來源。 智慧財產權在科技業可說是重要的競爭武器之一，智慧財產權管理更為各企業亟欲增進的能力。立法院於1998年底通過科學技術基本法，通過將合作研發成果的智財權中政府出資部分的權利下放給研發單位，對我國產學研合作的智慧財產權管理具有相當之影響，而後如何執行以達成技術擴散，更是需要深入探討。 本文希望從管理面與法律面來探討產學研合作的智慧財產權管理，透過（1）國內外文獻探討；（2）專家深度訪談；（3）先進國家產學研合作與智財權管理之探討；（4）國內產學研合作與智財權管理之個案分析等方式來進行探討。借重國外經驗，發現國內實行時的問題，以期經由良好的合作與技術移轉制度，使學研單位獲得經費補助與權利金回饋，且亦使廠商獲得切合需要之技術的使用權，讓創新成果獲得保護，並讓知識能充分移轉流通，強化我國國家創新系統。 本研究建議如下： 一、 對政府而言 （一） 以藏富於民的原則將智財權下放 （二） 例外介入以使成果充分使用 （三） 專利成果應用的限制 （四） 建立產業技術移轉服務體系（ITTS） （五） 修改相關法令 二、 對大學而言 （一） 應設立專責的智慧財產權管理單位 （二） 與中介機構合作執行智慧財產權管理 （三） 將研究方向分為基礎研究導向與產業技術導向 （四） 鼓勵大學教授投入產業服務 （五） 設立創新技術公司 三、 對研發機構而言 （一） 研發機構應更積極鼓勵研發人員投入研發 （二） 積極與民間企業合作並從事技術推廣與技術移轉 （三） 加強智慧財產權管理能力 （四） 落實R＆D人數/智財權業務人數比例 四、 對廠商而言 （一） 培養本身研發能力與技術承接能力 （二） 善用外在技術資源 （三） 建立智慧財產權權管理制度 （四） 與學研單位合作應秉持多次合作的誠意 （五） 與學研單位建立長期合作關係並合理的給予回饋 目錄 表 目 錄 3 圖 目 錄 5 第一章 緒論 7 第一節 研究背景 7 第二節 研究動機 10 第三節 研究目的與問題 12 第四節 研究大綱 13 第二章 文獻探討 15 第一節 智慧財產權 15 第二節 科技基本法 26 第三節 產學合作 29 第四節 產研合作 39 第三章 研究方法 45 第一節 研究取向 45 第二節 研究方法 47 第三節 訪談對象 48 第四節 個案範圍 49 第五節 研究限制 50 第四章 先進國家產學研合作與智慧財產權管理 51 第一節 美國產學研合作與智慧財產權管理 51 第二節 日本產學研合作與智慧財產權管理 83 第三節 德國產學研合作與智慧財產權管理 101 第五章 國內個案分析 119 第一節 工業技術研究院 119 第二節 台大慶齡工業中心 155 第三節 宏□電腦 175 第六章 結論與建議 191 第一節 結論 191 第二節 對政府的建議 195 第三節 對大學的建議 201 第四節 對研發機構的建議 204 第五節 對產業界的建議 206 第六節 對後續研究的建議 209 參考文獻 213 / Taiwan’s industry has transferred from traditional labor-intensive industries to knowledge-intensive technology industries. Furthermore, Taiwan has become a leading country for information and electronics manufacturing industries. According to statistical data, Taiwan has leaded more than ten items of components in their industries in the world and their marketing shares are getting up. But our industrial structure is based on Small Middle Enterprise (SME). The R&D capability can’t keep up with the oversea big companies. The collaboration between industry, university, and research institute is very important for Taiwan’s industries. SME depend universities and research institutes’ research outcomes to bring up the industrial technology level. Intellectual Property Right (IPR) is one of the most important competitive weapons for industry. As a result, IPR management ability is what every firm would like to cultivate. In 1998, the Legislative Yuan passed the Science and Technology Basic Law which allowing the IPR releasing from the government sponsored projects to the research institutes and universities. It would have a tremendous effect on the IPR management in collaborated research between industry, university, and research institute. From the management and law’s point view, the purpose of this thesis is to (1) clarify and analyze the international and domestic data of IPR management; (2) compare the collaborated research between industry, university, and research institute in advanced countries such as the United State, Japan, and Germany; and (3) study the case of Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Taiwan University, and ACER to discover the practical IPR management problems in Taiwan. With proper university and industry collaboration and technology transfer system, universities will get proper return for the research fund and industry will be able to utilize the invention well. Therefore the innovative research outcomes would be protected and the knowledge would diffuse smoothly that reinforce Taiwan’s National Innovation System (NIS). Consequently, this thesis makes the following suggestions for government, universities, research institutes, and industries: 1. For Government (1) Allow the university and research institute to own the Intellectual Property Right. (2) Government own the exceptional involvement right in order to apply the R&D outcomes well. (3) Proper restriction to patent application. (4) Establish Industrial Technology Transfer Service (ITTS). (5) Amend the relative regulations and laws. 2. For University (1) Establish specific IPR management office. (2) Collaborate with the agency institute to executive IPR management. (3) Divide research direction into basic research orientation and industrial technology research orientation. (4) Encourage professors devoting the industrial service. (5) Fund the innovation technological company. 3. For Research Institute (1) Encourage R&D staff devoting more effort in their job. (2) Actively collaborate with industry and engage in technology transfer and promotion. (3) Enhance IPR management ability. (4) Improve the R&D staff / IPR management staff ratio. 4. For Industry (1) Cultivate R&D ability and technology receiving ability. (2) Utilize outside technology resource well. (3) Establish IPR management system. (4) Remain condor when collaborate with universities and research institutes. (5) Establish long-term partnership with universities and research institutes then give them reasonable feedback.

如果你是一名技術創業家，你會選擇在台灣創業，抑或直接到美國創業？如果台灣要成為技術創業家的「天堂」，這座天堂會是長成什麼模樣？若以美國創業環境作為現今台灣「打造創業天堂」的學習典範，台灣應如何「布置」這一座創業天堂？ 知識經濟時代，以知識、技術為基礎而進行之創業活動勢必與智慧財產權密切相關，因此本研究即藉由對於與智慧財產作價投資有關的幾項重要議題，包括智慧財產作價投資之概念、智慧財產作價投資與國內投資、智慧財產作價投資與國際投資、我國研發能量之釋放與科技基本法、智慧財產作價投資之會計處理、智慧財產作價投資之租稅問題、智慧財產作價投資之契約與章程等，進行研究及探討，最後針對美國Google公司之技術創業進行個案研究。內容相當廣泛，涉及法律、投資、會計、租稅、契約、評價、智慧財產、技術移轉等面向，並於探討上述議題後，對於台灣現狀提出如下之政策配套及法令修改建議，期許營造台灣成為一座鼓勵創新及創業活動的技術創業天堂： 一、 公司法應允許投資人得以「勞務」出資，建議放寬公司法第156條第5項對於出資種類之限制，並輔以「勞務作價股份銷除制度」作為配套。 二、 公司法應允許得銷除特定股份，而非一體性地等比例銷除，建議修改公司法第168條，賦予公司得以章程規定就特定股份為銷除之權限。。 三、 智慧財產評價之進行，應嚴守於「評價當時」智慧財產權所具有的價值，詳細區分「智慧財產/技術」與「勞務」之不同，而非將經勞務提供後所帶來的經濟價值一併計算在內。 四、 公司法應允許包括「發起設立時」、「募集設立時」，及「發行新股時」等，均得以智慧財產作價投資，建議對於公司法第131條、第156條及第272條之適用要件，予以一致化。 五、 技術並非法律上所規範之權利客體，建議將公司法第156條第5項所稱「技術」修改為「智慧財產」。 六、 對於擁有龐大智慧財產的公立學校及政府機關，應為其尋思解套方法。建議立法規定公立學校及行政機關得另成立一法人組織或基金會，將其所擁有之智慧財產權全部移轉至該智權控股機構或基金會中，由該組織或基金會來運用該些智慧財產權。 七、 現行政府之對外投資政策及法令仍處於管制經濟之思維，建議應加快我國對外投資自由化之腳步。 八、 科技基本法將智財權下放予執行單位，而行政院及各主管機關又訂定辦法對於執行單位之各項智權運用活動課以程序上之繁瑣要求，包括公開、公正之程序，境外實施需事前經主管機關許可等等，此些限制實已造成「智財之不完全下放」現象，嚴重阻礙以智慧財產作價投資建構技術創業天堂之實現。 九、 關於專利權及專門技術之攤折問題，建議應委請公正單位評估該技術之有效生命週期，同時提出該專利權及專門技術之「可能享有年限」，以作為會計上攤折之依據，並顧及企業營運上財務報表資訊之如實揭露。 十、 針對課稅時點之問題，由於作價投資所取得之股票，乃是「財產形式之轉變」，投資人實際上並未獲取所得，必須等到賣出股票時才有所得產生，故建議應於「股票轉讓時」始進行所得稅課徵。 十一、 技術創業要成功，重點是技術移轉要成功，因此，技術移轉之內容及方法便需於契約中詳加規範。 十二、 美國矽谷地區，創業人擁有創新與創業精神，並持續進行技術研發；學校提供創業所需資源、人脈予新創公司及創業人；而創投公司及天使投資人的資金挹注及管理要求與導入，更是新創公司成功的重要因素。此外，整體的外在大環境，包括冒險精神、會計制度、公司制度、租稅制度、法令制度及專業服務機構等等，都是營造創業天堂所不可或缺的要素。 / If you are a technology entrepreneur, will you start your business in Taiwan or in the U.S.? What is the Paradise for technology entrepreneurs if Taiwan chooses to become one? What should Taiwan provide in the environment if Taiwan takes the U.S. as a model of Entrepreneurship Paradise? In the era of knowledge-based economy, any start-up based on knowledge and technology will be closely related to issues of intellectual property. The thesis will focus on several important issues about investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity, such as its concept, domestic and international investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity, industrialization and commercialization of R&D results in Taiwan and the Science and Technology Basic Law, accounting procedures and taxation issues, contracts and regulations of investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity. The thesis will also illustrate with the case study of Google. The discussion tries to elaborate the issue from various aspects, including law, investment, accounting, taxation, contracts, technology evaluation, intellectual property and technology transfer. The thesis concludes with the following suggestions for governmental policy and law on the issues discussed, to build a paradise, friendly to innovation and start-ups, for technology entrepreneurs in Taiwan. 1. Labor should be recognized as an investment in Company Act. The limitation of investment category of Article 156 (5) should be expanded and be complemented with an elimination system of labor equity. 2. Elimination of specific shares, instead of elimination by ratio, should be allowed in Company Act. The thesis also proposes to amend Company Act Article 168 to authorize the enterprise to eliminate specific shares. 3. The evaluation of intellectual property should faithfully reflect its value for the time being. It should also distinguish the difference between the value of intellectual property/ technology and of labor, instead of a compound evaluation of both. 4. The investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity should be allowed when a company is established by means of promotion and by means of offer as well as when it issues new stocks. The applicable conditions of Company Act Article 131, 156, and 272 should be unified. 5. The term “technology” should be changed into “intellectual property” in Company Act Article 156 (5), given that “technology” is not an object of right defined by law. 6. There should be more channels for public universities and governmental institutions for the release of intellectual property. The government or legislators should enable public universities and governmental institutions to establish an institution or foundation and to transfer/ license their intellectual property to the institution for better use. 7. The government should abandon economic controlling measure through policy and regulation about overseas investment and speed up the liberation. 8. Science and Technology Basic Law authorize intellectual property rights to the executives. However, the Executive Yuan and other authorities set up orders and regulations on procedures about the application of intellectual property, including “public and fair procedure,” “overseas execution permission,” and so on. Those orders and regulations violate the spirits of Science and Technology Basic Law and prevent Taiwan from the Paradise for entrepreneurs. 9. Life cycle of patent and know-how should be evaluated by impartial organizations. The prediction of possible effective year of said patent and know-how should be taken for depreciation and amortization in accounting and be publicized as financial information of a company. 10. The investment with contribution of intellectual property should be taxed when stocks are transferred because such investments are transformation of asset types and the investors do not obtain actual income until the stocks are sold. 11. The success of a technology start-up depends on the success of technology transfer. Hence, the content and method of technology transfer should be defined in detail in the contract. 12. The entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley in the U.S. possess the spirits of innovation and entrepreneurship and keeps on technology research and development. The universities provide resources and personnel network for start-ups and entrepreneurs. Financing, introduction and demand of effective management from Venture Capitals and Angel Funds are the key factors for the success of start-up companies. Besides, the environment, including venture spirits, accounting and taxation system, company structures, law and regulation, and professional institutions, are indispensible for the establishment of the Paradise for entrepreneurs.

『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.