جهانی شدن فن آوری: تجزیه و تحلیل شبکه ای از ثبت اختراعات و علائم تجاری جهانی

This study explored how the structure of globalization of technology via intellectual property networks has changed longitudinally, and compares the structures of global trademarks and patents. It suggests that network analysis provides useful tools for describing recent trends in the globalization of technology. Network analyses describe which countries have higher technological capabilities, and also how countries are mutually connected for technological collaboration or transfer. In addition, network analysis confirmed that both the trademark and patent networks have become decentralized over time.

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creative works, new technology, or an exclusive symbol or design used in commerce that has economic value in the marketplace [1]. Therefore, intellectual property rights (IPRs) are the legal rights governing the use of such creations to promote these innovations, which add to an economy's knowledge base. Although the details of IPRs have been modified over time according to changes in economic and social situations, their basic function is to protect owners' rights and prevent others from taking actions that infringe upon or damage the property [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. In 1995, The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) brought with it a new era in the multilateral protection and enforcement of IP rights. Provisions in the TRIPS directly complement the international treaties administered by WIPO. Since 1996, an Agreement between the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the WTO provides for cooperation concerning the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, such as notification of laws and regulations, and legislative assistance to member countries [10]. The TRIPS agreement covers not only general provisions and basic principles but also new areas and rights not previously addressed by international law — or even the national laws of many industrialized countries. WIPO currently has 184 Member States, 66 intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and 265 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are accredited as observers at WIPO meetings. According to TRIPS, the objectives of intellectual property rights are “the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations”. However, at the global level, the relationship between intellectual property protection and international technology innovation or transfer has been a controversial [10]. Technology will continue to grow at an accelerated rate and new technology will be diffused around the world. The phenomenon of “globalization” is experienced by the world of invention and innovation. Without new technologies, globalization would not be possible because they play a role in information transfer from one place to another, thus allowing for the speed and the intensity which characterize the modern world [11]. Technological innovation cannot be accomplished in solitude, but requires collaboration among inventors, both within a country and across national boundaries. After technological inventions, innovators attempt to obtain economic advantages by exploiting their technological competencies in non-domestic markets [11] and [12]. Although the trade (export and import) of innovative goods is a main route for the international exploitation of nationally produced innovations, they also exploit their technological advantages by transferring their know-how to foreign firms wanting to introduce the latest technology. This strategy of exploitation in foreign markets innovations is both: embodied in products (a product is patented to prevent others from producing similar goods, thus covering the existing market); and disembodied (an innovation is patented in order to license it). The strategy is all the more convenient when there are various types of obstacles such as: (1) high transportation costs; (2) barriers to imports; and (3) high wage differentials between the innovating country and the importing country. Opinions about TRIPS under the WTO are sharply divided. Some have supported it because they consider it to be an instrument of the positive aspects of globalization, such as global harmonization, free and fair trade, and technology transfer. Conversely, opponents maintain that it is associated with the global technology gap, development barriers, the unfair structure of the global system, and the imperialism of international trade in general (for developing countries in particular). Although there have been disputes about the role of IPRs, they have impact on the globalization of technology. Thus, global IPR activities are used for measuring a country's technological capabilities and technology collaboration or transfer among countries.

This study explored how the structure of globalization of technology via intellectual property networks has changed longitudinally and how the structures of the global trademark and patent flow networks differ within this process. Network analysis provided various ways to examine and compare the patent and trademark networks. The out-degree centralities in the patent network indicated that some core countries — Japan, the United States, Germany, Korea, and France — play a key role in the global structure of technology innovation and R&D. However, many developed countries ranked relatively low with regards to in-degree centrality. For example, the in-degree centralities for France were lower than Russia or India. This suggests that many highly developed countries have self-sufficient technological infrastructures and capabilities rendering it less important for them to adopt inbound technology. Also, it suggests that there are more active inductions of foreign technology to satisfy industrial needs in developing countries. The centrality measures indicated that developed countries — specifically Germany, the United States, France, Switzerland, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Japan — play a core role in the globalization of commercialized technology, since high scores in outbound trademarks indicate that they have more registered trademarks and accumulate more commercial capital. The in-degree centralities in the trademark network showed that many developing countries, such as China, Mexico, Korea, and Russia, have moved toward the center of commercialization. The results of the correlations indicate that there are positive relations among all four out-degree centrality scores for patents and trademarks and in-degree centrality scores of patents and trademarks in all countries. It suggests that global trademark and patent flows are complementary. For example, most developing countries do not have the capability of developing or imitating others' technological innovations. They import high technology in the form of packaged products with trademarks made by developed countries.