光儲存產業相關產品專利集中授權模式之個案研究

The Case Study of Patent Pool Models on Optics Storage Industry Related Products

10.6378/JTM.200606.0001

施錦村(Chin-Tsun Shih)；洪儒瑤(Ju-Yao Hung)

光儲存產業 ； 集中授權 ； 內容分析法 ； 競爭效能 ； Optics Storage Industry ； Patent Pools ； Content Analysis ； Competition Efficiency

科技管理學刊

11卷2期（2006 / 06 / 01）

1 - 31

繁體中文

專利集中授權係提升廠商競爭力的重要方式之一，惟國內相關文獻鮮有針對集中授權模式探討者，尤其是光儲存產業自公平會處分飛利浦CD-R授權爭議案後，紛爭迭起，但業界迄今尚無一套可供遵行的原則。本研究有鑑於此，乃蒐集1995年DOJ/FTC訂定「集中授權原則」以來，國內、外光儲存產業集中授權共4件個案作為樣本，並經由內容分析法建構專利屬性、專利契約特性及專利組合型態等變數及態度量表，再藉由ANOVA、Tukey多重比較及Duncan序列檢定等統計檢定方法進行驗證。結果發現：（一）MPEG LA案係光儲存產業中競爭效能最高之授權模式；（二）MPEG LA、飛利浦DVD及東芝DVD集中授權案，在競爭效能上未達顯著差異水準；（三）飛利浦CD-R案與MPEG LA案、飛利浦DVD案及東芝DVD案之集中授權模式在競爭效能上已達顯著差異水準。此結果與研究命題相符合，將有助於國內未來對集中授權領域之研究。

True that the patent pools of firms can enhance their competitiveness, at the same time, it is an important method of settlement patent disputes, but little study has been found on the patent pool models in domestic documents, especially, the optics storage industry licensing disputes are growing since the Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan (TFTC) has treated the licensing case of Koninkijke Philip Electronics, N.V., but TFTC has not established explanatory guidelines. Based on above reasons, the authors have collected 4 cases of optics storage industry patent pool models, those are all since U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission had established ”Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property” in 1995. First, this study deliberates past related documents and constructs the category variables and attitude measurements of patent attributes, characteristics of patent contracts and licensing types by content analysis. Next, though the statistical tests include ANOVA, Tukey multiple comparison and Duncan rank test that are used to examine the sample's data, it than finds evidence of the following: (a) the MPEG LA patent pool licensing model is the best in this study; (b) among those licensing models, MPEG LA, Philip-DVD and Toshiba-DVD, do not reach significant different level on statistical analysis; (c) between Philip CD-R case and those cases reach significant different level on statistical analysis. Those results correspond with this study propositions, and it will help the future study of patent pool licensing domains.

1. Bednarek, M.,Ineichen, M.(2004).Patent Pool as an Alternative to Patent Wars in Emergent Sectors.Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal,16(7),1-5.
2. Carlson, S. C.(1999).Patent Pool and the Antitrust Dilemma.Yale Journal on Regulation,16(2),373-376.
3. Carrier, M. A.(2003).Resolving the Patent-Antitrust Paradox Through Tripartite Innovation.Vanderbilt Law Review,6(4),1053-1054.
4. Ebersole, T. J.,Guthrie, M. C.,Goldstein, J. A.(2005).Patent Pool as a Solution to the Licensing Problem of Diagnostic Genetics.Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal,17(1),7.
5. Grassler, F.,Capria, M. N.(2003).Patent pooling: Uncorking a technology transfer bottleneck and creating value in the biomedical research field.Journal of Commercial Biotechnology,9(2),111.
6. Hill, C. W. L.,Jones, G. R.(1998).Strategy Management Theory: An Integrated Approach.Boston:Houghton Muffin Company.
7. Holmes, W.C.(1995).Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law.N.Y.:West Group.
8. Kassarjian, H.H.,Kassarjian, W. M.(1988).The Impact of Regulation on Advertising: A Content Analysis.Journal of Consumer policy,11,269-285.
9. Kato, A.(2004).Patent Pool Enhance Market Competition.International Review of Law and Economics,24,255.
10. "Cross-Licensing and Antitrust Law" Speech of May 2 at the American Intellectual Property Law Association
11. Kotler, P.(1997).Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Inc.
12. Lindsay, A.(2003).The EC Merger Regulation Substantive Issue.London:Sweet & Maxwell.
13. Martin, S.(1993).Advance Industrial Economics.Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
14. Shapiro, C.(2003).Antitrust limits to patent settlements.The Rand Journal of Economics,34(2),39.
15. Weber, R. P.(1985).Basic Content Analysis.Beverly Hills, Calif.:Sage.
16. Williamson, O.E.(1968).Economic and Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Trade-off.American Economic Review,5(March),18-36.
17. 行政院公平交易委員會(2001)。行政院公平交易委員會公報，10(2)，458。
18. 何愛文(2003)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立台灣大學法律學研究所。
19. 吳萬益(2005)。企業研究方法。台北:華泰圖書出版公司。
20. 曾淑華(2000)。光儲存産業發展之研究。新竹:財團法人工業技術研究院。
21. 黃欣怡(2005)。我國光儲存產業市場趨勢及發展。台灣經濟金融月刊，41(2)，24-25。
22. 經濟部技術處(2005)。2005光電工業年鑑。台北:產業經濟與資訊服務中心。
23. 蔡芯宜(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台灣大學法律研究所。

1. (2009)。美國、台灣專利集中授權個案內容分析—反托拉斯準則的觀點。公平交易季刊，17(3)，143-174。