From Patent Counting Towards the System of IP Strategic Indicators
The strategies of the European Union and its Member States suppose that intellectual property (IP) created as a result of Ramp;D is the engine of economic growth and welfare in society. Studies based on the European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) have demonstrated that Ramp;D investments, support to the high technology industry and patenting intensity of the public sector differ in high- and low-income European countries. This fact refers to the need for adequate IP strategic indicatorsrsquo; system facilitating innovation in less developed countries.
The paper aims to conceptualize and suggest a strategic indicatorsrsquo; system of IP for a small efficiency-driven economy.
In contrast to the rather modest level of patenting by industry, universities of the Baltic States file approximately 50 % of PCT patent applications. Therefore, it is crucial to overcome barriers, hindering universitiesrsquo; IP commercialization. Academia-Industry collaboration includes two types of IP strategies: Active non-linear and Passive linear behavioural models of universities and public sector. An essential part of the active approach focuses on the “soft measures” for networking with firms in collaborative platforms such as AIMdayreg; at the Uppsala University in Sweden. The proposed IP strategy system involves qualitative and quantitative indicators at the state as well as university and company level. The comparison of academic publishing and patenting by the staff of Tartu and Uppsala universities testifies to their rather same levels of productivity. Three times wider patent families of the inventions of Uppsala origin characterize actorsrsquo; market ambition as well as the strength of the University-Industry linkages that are more developed in Uppsala than in Tartu.
Keywords: Intellectual Property (IP), Patenting, Indicators System, University-Industry Collaboration, Knowledge Production, Invention, Patent Family.
It is generally acknowledged that intellectual property1 (IP) created as a result of research and development (Ramp;D) drives economic growth and welfare in society. The strategies of the European Union, as well as its Member States, originate from this understanding. According to the joint research of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) IPR-intensive industries are shown to have generated almost 26 % of all the jobs and almost 39 % of the total economic activity (GDP - gross domestic product) in the EU during the period 2008–2010 (Wajsman et al., 2013). The capability to create and implement IP is one of the most significant components of the Ramp;D and innovation system on macro- and micro-level characterizing Ramp;D activities on state, academia, and business level. The number of scientific publications, PCT patent applications, licence and patent revenues is deemed a primary indicator for Innovation Scoreboard (EU, 2015) aligning statesrsquo; innovativeness.
Indicator in a socio-economic development context. It is easy enough to count the number of patent applications, patents granted, and scientific publications. This statistical approach, however, does not provide any meaningful insights into the real contribution of IP nor how these welfare goals could be reached. Moreover, for small countries, it raises the question of attribution of Ramp;D to economic development and international cooperation. In many cases, the results of public (universitiesrsquo;) Ramp;D also enter the public domain that is available to be freely used by anybody anywhere.
Another approach centres on the commercialization of university Ramp;D. It is a widespread practice that universities (not only Estonian) start searching for industrial partners only after a patent application has been filed. Even then they have not conducted any technical or business verification of the patented invention. There is no feasibility study of the economic value of the patent/invention for different markets. The patenting strategy is patterned solely on general recommendations to cover territories of leading countries only. This situation is described by the share of economically meaningful PCT patent applications. In Estonia as well as in Latvia and Lithuania, universities are.
The main patent applicants and in the last several years even more than half of the PCT patent applications have belonged to universities. The corresponding number for Sweden and Finland speaks of the opposite trend – their industry amounts to 93–95 % (Table 1), and there is not a single university among the top 10 patent applicants. Of course, the absolute numbers of patenting in the countries differ nearly hundred times. This fact characterizes more the structure and not so much the size of these economies. As known from the knowledge economy approach, Sweden and Finland are the prime examples of innovation-driven economies (Acs, Desai amp; Hessels, 2008). Because of their much lower knowledge-base, traditional quantitative IP indicators do not create enough incentives for the Baltic States. The Baltic States, still lagging behind, belong to efficiency-driven economies (Arro et al., 2013). But, they also lack comparative empirical data of knowledge and IP production by Ramp;D institutions of these country groups.
The aim of the paper is to conceptualize and suggest a strategic indicators system of IP for a small efficiency- driven economy.
To reach the target the following research tasks have been undertaken: (1) discussion of the theoretical framework and the system of IP indicators describing the transition from efficiency-driven to innovation-driven economy, (2) measurement of IP productivity and analysis of constraints in Ramp;D and knowledge production, and (3) suggestion of IP indicatorsrsquo; system suitable for a small efficiency-driven country.
The theoretical fram
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
From Patent Counting Towards the System of IP Strategic Indicators
The strategies of the European Union and its Member States suppose that intellectual property (IP) created as a result of Ramp;D is the engine of economic growth and welfare in society. Studies based on the European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) have demonstrated that Ramp;D investments, support to the high technology industry and patenting intensity of the public sector differ in high- and low-income European countries. This fact refers to the need for adequate IP strategic indicatorsrsquo; system facilitating innovation in less developed countries.
The paper aims to conceptualize and suggest a strategic indicatorsrsquo; system of IP for a small efficiency-driven economy.
In contrast to the rather modest level of patenting by industry, universities of the Baltic States file approximately 50 % of PCT patent applications. Therefore, it is crucial to overcome barriers, hindering universitiesrsquo; IP commercialization. Academia-Industry collaboration includes two types of IP strategies: Active non-linear and Passive linear behavioural models of universities and public sector. An essential part of the active approach focuses on the “soft measures” for networking with firms in collaborative platforms such as AIMdayreg; at the Uppsala University in Sweden. The proposed IP strategy system involves qualitative and quantitative indicators at the state as well as university and company level. The comparison of academic publishing and patenting by the staff of Tartu and Uppsala universities testifies to their rather same levels of productivity. Three times wider patent families of the inventions of Uppsala origin characterize actorsrsquo; market ambition as well as the strength of the University-Industry linkages that are more developed in Uppsala than in Tartu.
Keywords: Intellectual Property (IP), Patenting, Indicators System, University-Industry Collaboration, Knowledge Production, Invention, Patent Family.
It is generally acknowledged that intellectual property1 (IP) created as a result of research and development (Ramp;D) drives economic growth and welfare in society. The strategies of the European Union, as well as its Member States, originate from this understanding. According to the joint research of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) IPR-intensive industries are shown to have generated almost 26 % of all the jobs and almost 39 % of the total economic activity (GDP - gross domestic product) in the EU during the period 2008–2010 (Wajsman et al., 2013). The capability to create and implement IP is one of the most significant components of the Ramp;D and innovation system on macro- and micro-level characterizing Ramp;D activities on state, academia, and business level. The number of scientific publications, PCT patent applications, licence and patent revenues is deemed a primary indicator for Innovation Scoreboard (EU, 2015) aligning statesrsquo; innovativeness.
Indicator in a socio-economic development context. It is easy enough to count the number of patent applications, patents granted, and scientific publications. This statistical approach, however, does not provide any meaningful insights into the real contribution of IP nor how these welfare goals could be reached. Moreover, for small countries, it raises the question of attribution of Ramp;D to economic development and international cooperation. In many cases, the results of public (universitiesrsquo;) Ramp;D also enter the public domain that is available to be freely used by anybody anywhere.
Another approach centres on the commercialization of university Ramp;D. It is a widespread practice that universities (not only Estonian) start searching for industrial partners only after a patent application has been filed. Even then they have not conducted any technical or business verification of the patented invention. There is no feasibility study of the economic value of the patent/invention for different markets. The patenting strategy is patterned solely on general recommendations to cover territories of leading countries only. This situation is described by the share of economically meaningful PCT patent applications. In Estonia as well as in Latvia and Lithuania, universities are.
The main patent applicants and in the last several years even more than half of the PCT patent applications have belonged to universities. The corresponding number for Sweden and Finland speaks of the opposite trend – their industry amounts to 93–95 % (Table 1), and there is not a single university among the top 10 patent applicants. Of course, the absolute numbers of patenting in the countries differ nearly hundred times. This fact characterizes more the structure and not so much the size of these economies. As known from the knowledge economy approach, Sweden and Finland are the prime examples of innovation-driven economies (Acs, Desai amp; Hessels, 2008). Because of their much lower knowledge-base, traditional quantitative IP indicators do not create enough incentives for the Baltic States. The Baltic States, still lagging behind, belong to efficiency-driven economies (Arro et al., 2013). But, they also lack comparative empirical data of knowledge and IP production by Ramp;D institutions of these country groups.
The aim of the paper is to conceptualize and suggest a strategic indicators system of IP for a small efficiency- driven economy.
To reach the target the following research tasks have been undertaken: (1) discussion of the theoretical framework and the system of IP indicators describing the transition from efficiency-driven to innovation-driven economy, (2) measurement of IP productivity and analysis of constraints in Ramp;D and knowledge production, and (3) suggestion of IP indicatorsrsquo; system suitable for a small efficiency-driven country.
The theoretical fram
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[238944]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
