استراتژی مالکیت معنوی در شرکت های ژاپنی و بریتانیا: تصمیم گیری در صدور مجوز ثبت اختراع و فرصت های آموزشی

Intellectual Property (IP) management of explicit knowledge encapsulated in and managed by Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) is discussed using the first comparative study of UK and Japanese IP management. IP's role in both licensing and continuous learning, whether through licensing or patent information management (PIM), is illustrated. Japanese companies actively search for technology to license in to a greater extent than in the UK where attitudes to IP are more static even though active marketing of technology to license out is similar. It is shown that IP strategy occurs in a space defined by time, techno-legal scope and technological advantage and that licensing decisions need consideration from licensee and licensor viewpoints and a dynamic not static viewpoint.

Considerable attention has been paid of late to “knowledge management” Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995 and Teece, 1998. However, many definitions of this exist. To some it represents just management of IT systems and databases or of personnel who possess and create knowledge. To others it means the management of knowledge creation processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and the management of not just stocks but flows of knowledge (Fahey and Prusak, 1998). Such definitions generally look at processes inside a firm and can thus be linked to a view of knowledge as an underlying firm resource to be managed within a resource-based view of the firm1(Grant, 1996). Knowledge Management though with its generally inward emphasis is but one form of intangible resource management. Other terms describing intangible resources exist such as Intellectual Capital, Invisible Assets and Intellectual Assets, some of which overlap with the term “knowledge”. Polanyi (1966) distinguishes between tacit and explicit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) and whilst management of intra-company and largely tacit knowledge is important, managing explicit knowledge or intellectual assets involved in inter-company dealings is equally important. Whether knowledge is tacit or explicit though, a key factor involved in determining what should be managed to control the knowledge or intellectual asset is the extent to which a firm can appropriate the knowledge or resource concerned (Grant, 1991) using some form of isolating mechanism (Rumelt, 1984). The combination of the tacit/explicit embodiment of the intellectual asset and its appropriability will determine whether one should concentrate on controlling the particular embodiment of the intellectual asset or whether it is more important to control intellectual property rights (IPRs) protecting it (Fig. 1). Full-size image (6 K) Fig. 1. Embodiment and appropriability of intellectual assets. Figure options As knowledge becomes more explicit and more protectable using IPRs, controlling access to the physical embodiment of the knowledge — (which might be a particular expert or group of experts2) becomes less important and controlling access to and managing the IPRs concerned more important. Thus, not just knowledge management but also intellectual property (IP) management forms part of a resource-based view of the firm. This is emphasised indirectly by Peteraf (1993) who mentions that “A resource based perspective may also help a firm in deciding whether to license a new technology or whether to develop it internally”. Of course if no IPRs are available and the knowledge is explicit, then only an advantageous strategic position, especially, as Teece (1986) has suggested, in relation to appropriate complementary assets, will enable some degree of appropriation. However, wherever some form of legal appropriability is possible, IP management is going to be critical to obtaining the maximum benefit possible from the underlying asset, whatever the position regarding complementary assets. Consequently, “Knowledge Management” or “Intellectual Property Management” at least so far as explicit knowledge and inter-company dealings are concerned, mean management not just of Knowledge or IP per se but of the legal rights that define them in those dealings — the IPRs that a company controls. IPRs thus form the focus of this study, with the primary focus being on patents3, the most important High Technology IPR.

The present paper has outlined some key features of Japanese external IP management and in particular the key pro-active elements of licensing and learning. The latter, in particular, exemplified by both PIM and learning involved in licensing in technology from others. The position of Japan as a country which is at the same time both a leading technology exporter and importer and which has reached this position with the help of, rather than in spite of, an intellectual property system makes an interesting example which other developing countries wondering about the utility of an IP system might learn from. At the same time, developed countries which have latterly concentrated more on the protective aspects of IP law can also learn from Japan's use of the disseminative role of IP law and its example of continuous learning and curiosity about developments elsewhere to complement indigenous technology. Japan thus serves as an example to emphasise that IP Strategy, and particularly licensing and cross-licensing, whilst subject to the various influences outlined above, takes place within a space defined by dimensions of time, technological advance and techno-legal scope. An IP system is thus a considerable help to technological development and a company's IPRs are valuable resources needing careful management. Awareness of other companies' IPRs is also important, both to learn from them as well as to avoid infringing them and so as to make the best strategic decisions about one's own IPRs. If the market leadership IPRs can confer is to be preserved, then internalisation of learning and reinforcement and preservation of a companies' IPRs by continuous development is essential. The present study has emphasised the importance of gathering and analysing patent information, of learning, whether from PIM or licensing, and of formulating dynamic time-based IP strategies. “IP Strategy” is thus more than the use of IPRs as barriers to preserve competitive advantage. Rather, IPRs are resources to be used in a wide variety of ways as dynamic control mechanisms to exploit the flow of technology and as sources of information themselves forming part of that flow. Surely a dynamic not static approach, forming part of a firm's R&D policy, which includes both learning about and protecting technological developments and thus controlling the flow of technology to its advantage, is the optimal way to exploit intellectual property and the explicit knowledge it encapsulates.