none

Purpose - The aim of this study is to provide large incumbent organizations a tool to moreeffectively evaluate and implement digital platforms while taking into account the needs ofthe stakeholders. To do so, we developed a roadmap consisting of nine steps that are dividedinto three different phases. Method - This study was conducted by using a abductive research method utilizing aquantitative data collection by analyzing earlier research and qualitative data collectionthrough interviews. The interviews were conducted in three phases: exploratory, semistructured and validatory interviews. In total 21 interviews were conducted which wereanalyzed through a thematic analysis. Findings - The thematic analysis resulted in three main themes; Platform transitionassessment, Planning platform transition, and Execute platform transition. These themes ledto a roadmap for platform transitions, for large incumbent organizations. Theoretical and Managerial implications - The presented study contributes to existingliterature by combining existing change management and technology adoption models todevelop a roadmap for evaluation and implementation of digital platforms. Furthermore, thisstudy provides managers with important insight and practical implications of importantfactors that should be considered before and during a digital transformation. Limitations and future research - This study is limited by its qualitative method since it isfocused on a single case study in a limited time-span in a large international industry.Therefore, the generalizability of the findings in this study might be limited and needs to beconfirmed in other contexts.

隨著知識經濟時代的來臨，許多企業、機構開始投入龐大的資源在智慧財產的發展，並規劃所謂智慧財產策略，標榜智慧財產是其最大價值及獲利所在，然而，這些為取得智慧財產所付出的鉅額代價，是否真的為企業和機構創造出高價值的智慧財產並帶來豐厚的利潤？以台灣為例，2005年台灣的專利申請數量，在美國排名外國申請人第四名，在日本排名第三，在歐洲也僅次於日本和韓國排名亞洲第三；而專利獲准件數方面，在美國排名第三，在日本也高居第二。但是，台灣每年花費超過新台幣100億元在專利申請上的結果，卻係每年仍需支付高達新台幣1500億元之多的權利金，以及每年新台幣500至600億元之律師費以應付美國專利侵權訴訟，而造成此結果的原因就在於整個智慧財產從研發、保護、經營、管理到行銷，都欠缺規劃、理論、方法和商業模式，而全球現今亦尚未有針對智慧財產發展出來之行銷學或行銷理論。 　　以有形產品和服務為基礎形成之行銷學理論發展迄今已有五十餘年的歷史，不但帶動了相關產業的發達，滿足了市場的需求，也為企業創造了獲利，而各種行銷學理論更是不斷形成和發展，包括運用市場區隔（segmentation）、選定目標市場（targeting）及定位（positioning）的STP程序，以及有形產品的4P、4C、6P、3V，和服務行銷的7P、8P等等，該等行銷理論雖然成熟，惟因智慧財產性質特殊，使得有形產品和服務之行銷理論無法直接套用於智慧財產行銷上，因此，實有必要針對各種智慧財產態樣，分別建構智慧財產之行銷理論及商業模式。 　　基此，本文試圖建立一套完整的專利行銷理論和商業模式，建構流程和步驟如下：(一)發展專利行銷之環境條件；(二)專利行銷應考量之因素；(三)專利行銷流程之組合要素；(四)專利行銷執行規劃；(五)專利行銷商業模式。本文並融合前述專利行銷理論，架構出發展專利行銷所需之平台系統，以及專利行銷執行中所需之配套措施，包括代理及經銷機制、會計財務制度和稅務規劃。此外，本文亦就全球包括台灣在內的一些較著名之智慧財產交易平台深入分析、檢視，並探討渠等可能面臨之問題和困境。本文在架構智慧財產行銷理論時，著重於涵蓋並融合整個組織內部和外部的研發創新、經營管理和市場行銷之作業流程，祈有助企業建立以市場為導向之商業發展策略和創新研發計劃，有助政府的產業政策得以使整個國家產業鏈規劃更完整、資源配置更具效益，有助研發機構之研發計畫更貼近產業和市場需求。 / With the emerging of knowledge-economy era, lots of enterprises and institutions begin to invest huge amount of resources in the development of Intellectual Property (“IP”), and to develop so called “Intellectual Property Strategy.” Some of them will try to boost its reputation by highlighting that intellectual property is their most valuable assets and the source of profits. However, it is questionable whether those IP related significant investments really create high value IPs and bring in high margin profits for these enterprises and institutions. Take Taiwan as an example, Taiwan has been ranked as the top fourth foreign applicant in the US in comparison of the total quantity of patent applications in year 2005. The same ranking for Taiwanese patent application in Japan is top 3 and Taiwan is also ranked as top 3 among Asia countries in Europe (only fewer than Japan and Korea.) As for the total amount of patents granted, Taiwan is top 3 in the US and top 2 in Japan. Nevertheless, even though Taiwan has made an annual investment for more than NT$10 billion in patent applications, it is estimated that annually Taiwan still needs to pay more than NT$150 billion for patent royalty fees, as well as 50 to 60 billion of legal fees in responding to US patents infringement litigations. The reason is the lack of strategic planning, theory, methodology and business model in the overall IP areas, including from Research & Development to IP protections, business operation, management and marketing. In addition, currently there is no marketing research or marketing theory specifically developed for IP in the world. 　　There are more than 50 years of history and development in the marketing study or theory that based on tangible goods and services, such study not only promoted the vibrant development of related industries, fulfilled the market needs, but also generated profits for enterprises. In the meantime, all kinds of marketing theories continue to emerge and develop, including the STP procedure for leveraging market segmentation, market targeting and market positioning, and the 4P, 4C, 6P, 3V theories focused on tangible products, and the 7P, 8P theories applied to service marketing. Although these theories are quite mature, due to the special nature of IP, these theories focused on tangible goods and services still cannot directly apply to the IP marketing. Therefore, it is really necessary to separately build up unique marketing theories and business models specially focused on different kinds of IP. 　　Based on the above, this thesis is trying to establish a set of complete patent marketing theory and business model. The flow and process are: (1) the environment conditions for developing patent marketing; (2) the factors that need to be considered when conducting patent marketing; (3) the necessary components in the process of patent marketing; (4) the implementation planning for patent marketing; (5) the business model for patent marketing. This thesis also combines the above patent marketing theories to establish the platform system which is necessary for developing patent marketing, and also a complete set of supporting measures which is necessary for implementing patent marketing, including agent and distribution mechanisms, accounting and finance system, as well as tax planning. In addition, this thesis also conducted in-depth analysis and review on some of the well-known global (including Taiwan) IP transaction platforms, and also study potential issues and challenges these platforms may encounter. During the structuring of IP marketing theory, this thesis focuses on covering and integrating all the internal and external 　　organizational operation processes related to R&D, innovation, business management and segment marketing. The author wishes to assist enterprises by building up market-driven business development strategy and R&D/innovation plan; to assist the government by improving the industry development policy to establish a more complete country wide industry value-chain planning and a more efficient resources allocation plan; and to assist the research institutes by creating a research and development plan which is more close to industry and market needs.

政府透過法律制度將原先具有非排他性及非敵對性等公共財性質之專利財產化，藉此鼓勵發明人進行研發，間接為整體社會帶來促進創新與阻礙創新等不同面向之影響，而專利之私有化使擁有專利之所有人取得排他獨佔權限，如此累積創新所帶來之結果便是形成專利叢林現象，使單一產品生產時須取得眾多專利，增加未取得專利之侵權風險，該專利叢林現象後續更促使訴訟成為新興專利聚集型態獲取利益之手段。 從專利取得之角度觀察，其取得專利之方式可系統化分為自行研發、併購等內化形式或取得專利授權等外部形式，而專利取得之動機則從單純產業利用轉變為企業策略性考量；現今專利市場中，更經常將取得之專利以授權或出售方式商品化，甚或以專利作為商業談判、利益交換之籌碼，使專利有貨幣化現象。從經濟學之角度思考，專利貨幣化或有交易、預防及投機等動機，並得從專利本質上與後續發展上之特性觀察到專利貨幣化之因素。 由於本文將專利市場分為專利聚集、專利交易平台、專利資訊提供者及一般個人、實際從事生產公司與研究機構等不同類型參與者，並將研究對象著重在專利聚集與專利交易平台二者，因此特於本文中討論專利聚集形成之階段與交易模式，且因應專利交易模式而衍生探討專利交易價金之計算。從本文可知，專利聚集得區分為攻擊型、防禦型、以授權營利型及混合型四大類，各類型專利聚集及專利交易平台皆有其創造價值之價值鏈活動安排、整體產業競爭作用力之五力分析與支援核心競爭優勢之相對應策略活動系統，並從各市場參與者之運作模式中亦得觀察可能存在之缺失。 攻擊型專利聚集表面上雖提供授權服務，然手段上具有強制性，以訴訟等手段迫使下游實際從事生產等公司支付授權金以取得專利授權，從模式上觀察，其存在未經挑選專利、擁有專利過多及組織體系過於龐雜等缺失；而防禦型專利聚集則從下游買方之迫切需求角度出發，以防禦目的之專利授權或出售為訴求，藉由廣泛涵蓋不同領域之專利組合滿足下游買方對於專利侵權風險之控管，然其現有模式可能因支付有限年費導致難以確保購買大量專利之品質，並有為符合眾多會員需求使專利相關性降低以及整體產業難以避免搭便車現象等缺失；至於以授權營利型專利聚集透過技術或產品標準定義之專利組合，包裹式將下游實際從事生產廠商需要之專利一次性授權，雖不見得有授權之急迫需求，但顯然降低下游買方取得授權之交易成本，惟其缺失為權利金分配制度之公平性與專利組合之區別標準。混合型專利聚集則涵蓋上述三種專利聚集之優勢，並以特殊之智財資本市場重新定位無形資產能夠創造之價值，對於下游買方及上游專利供應者而言，皆帶來產業結構變化之衝擊，同時以專利組合授權來滿足下游專利被授權人之需求，不過，混合型專利聚集管理複雜度高、經濟利潤有下降可能，並且長期將有價格扭曲之應變風險。 專利交易平台與專利聚集不同之處在於其不直接取得專利或專利授權，僅以專利供給方與需求方之交易中介者自居，然從廣義概念上，其亦為專利聚集之一種形態，有助於專利買賣雙方取得資訊，降低搜尋、談判或執行等交易成本，並透過其他業務互補專利交易平台業務可能之不足，惟其仍舊有所缺失，亦即價格決定機制之困難、服務範疇過大導致成本控管之不經濟與交易公開之接受程度等問題。從本文各章節之分析中，可比較各市場參與者之不同，亦得觀察彼此間之互動與缺失，從而提出未來可能之研究方向，並針對專利市場之管制與開放給予建議。 / The propertization of patents which intrinsically show the traits of public goods including non-excludable and non-rival was established to encourage inventors and therefore leads to positive and negative influence to the society indirectly. The privatization of patents protects the exclusive rights of the owners, whereas what we called the accumulated innovation set up the patent thickets that enhance the risks of infringement and promote the strategic litigations raised by new patent aggregators. The methods of acquiring patents could systematically divided into internalization which includes R&D and M&A, and externalization which includes licensing and so on. While the motivations of acquiring patents transform from industrial applications to strategic considerations, and the patents gradually become commercialized and even express its monetization. This paper classifies different players in the patent market, such as patent aggregators, patent transaction platforms, patent information providers and operating companies, while with the focus on patent aggregators and patent transaction platform. Besides, the patent aggregators could be categorized into “offensive patent aggregators”, “defensive patent aggregators”, “running by licensing patent aggregators” and “hybrid patent aggregators”. Moreover, the findings of this paper stand on what each patent aggregator and patent transaction platform has its scheduled activities of the value chain, the five forces model to the analysis of its industry and the strategic activities system for supporting its core competence, and even the demerits of its operating model. The offensive patent aggregators provide licensing services, while its services apparently contain compulsive licensing model by raising claims against the operating companies. Instead, defensive patent aggregators help the downstream buyers in need to fight against the offensive patent aggregators by licensing or selling patent portfolios which cover broad technological areas and benefit risk management. Next, the running by licensing patent aggregators package their patents by standards of technologies or products and provide “one-stop-shop licensing solutions” to the downstream buyers to save the transaction costs. Furthermore, the hybrid patent aggregators embrace the advantages of three kinds of patent aggregators mentioned above and try to create the IP capital market leading to the transformation of the industry structure. On the other hand, the patent transaction platforms are different from the patent aggregators in the ownerships of patents. The patent transaction platforms will never become the owner of the patents or acquire the rights of patent licensing, it just named themselves intermediaries of transaction that reduce the transaction cost and enhance the transparency of information. Nevertheless, the diversified operating models of different patent aggregators and patent transaction platforms exist its improvable or inevitable drawbacks. The analysis of each chapter in this paper could help to compare the players in patent market and contribute to observe the shortages and interactions between the ones. What’s more, this paper gives some suggestions for further researches in the future as the conclusion.