創新一向被視為企業成長與存續的主要元素之一。在網際網路提升了全球化競爭與快速的商業變動的情況下，管理者必須明白，高附加價值的無形資產已成為商場的致勝關鍵因素，而專利做為智慧資產的指標之一，更是常被用來衡量企業的技術與創新之績效。

本文以資源基礎觀點與演化經濟學為立論基礎，將專利權視為企業競爭優勢，且認為企業從事技術創新時應仍以強化核心能力為重，並進一步探討台灣科技產業專利與企業績效的關係：(1)企業在致力於申請與規劃專利時，獲利是否得到實際的提升? (2)企業在技術創新的同時，是否持續研發專精技術或相關多元化技術才能得到較好的表現？

本研究使用次級資料庫來收集台灣半導體、光電及電子零組件產業在1997-2007年間的專利與營利資料，透過panel data分析來探討專利活動、創新多元化與經營績效間關係。分析結果顯示：(1)長期之累積專利對於企業的影響力大於剛申請之短期專利，表示專利權具有跨期擴散的特性；(2)不同產業的研發方向的策略將會不同，專利權的影響力也有所區別，但往多元化發展時對企業績效無明顯助益，故廠商在考慮創新選擇權時仍應以核心技術的蓄積為重。

Innovation has always been regarded as an important element for the growth and survival of firm. With the rise of global competition, business changes brought about by the internet, and an increasing need for companies to realize the value of intangible assets. Patent, as one of the indicators of intellectual properties, is suitable for measuring the technology capabilities and innovation performance of corporations.

This study bases on resource-base theory and evolutionary economics, and sample patent information of Taiwan's semiconductor industry, the optoelectronics industry and the electronic components industry over the past decade, to observe the direction of innovation activities. This study use panel data analysis to discuss the relationship among patent right, innovation diversity and firm’s performance.

Results of this study show: (1) the cumulative long-term patents for business influence is greater than just short-term patents, it shows patent rights have characteristics of diffusion; (2) Different industries in directions of innovation strategy will be different, however, firms should place importance on core technology when they consider R&D portfolio.

第一章 緒論..........................................1
第一節 研究背景......................................1
第二節 研究動機與目的................................2
第三節 論文結構......................................4
第二章　文獻探討.........................................5
第一節 資源基礎理論..................................5
第二節 專利權........................................7
第三節 創新多元化....................................12
第三章 研究方法.........................................14
第一節 論文架構......................................14
第二節 研究假設......................................15
第三節 樣本資料......................................17
第四節 變數衡量......................................21
第五節 分析方法......................................24
第四章 實證結果與討論分析............................27
第一節 敘述性統計....................................27
第二節 實證結果......................................34
第五章 結論與建議....................................38
第一節 研究結論......................................38
第二節 研究貢獻......................................41
第三節 研究限制與建議................................42
參考文獻.................................................43
附錄.....................................................46

1. Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3):p 425-455.
2. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. 1997. The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation. Small Business Economics, 9: p21-31.
3. Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. 1996. Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16(9): p451-468.
4. Arundel, A., & Kabla, J. 1998. What percentage of innovation are patented? Experimental estimates in European firms. Research Policy, 27.
5. Barney, J. 1986. Strategic factor makets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 42: p1231-1241.
6. Basberg, B. L. 1983. Foreign patenting in the U.S. as a technology indicator : The case of Norway. Research Policy, 12(4): p 227-237.
7. Bassett-Jones, N. 2005. The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2): p 169-175.
8. Breitzman, Thomas, P., & Cheney, M. 2002. Technological powerhouse or diluted competence: Techniques for assessing mergers via patent analysis. R&D Management, 32(1): p1-10.
9. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holme, M., & Rickne, A. 2002. Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2): p233-245.
10. Cheng, S. 2004. R&D expenditures and CEO compensation. The Accounting Review, 79 (2): p305-328
11. Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. 1992. The trade off betweeen firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress. Small Business Economics, 4: 1-14.
12. Debra, M., & Sivakumar, K. 2004. Patents and product development strategies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1): p5-22.
13. Ernst, H. 1998. Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15: p279-308.
14. Ernst, H. 2001. Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, 30(1): p143-157.
15. Ernst, H. 2003. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3): p233-242.
16. Ettlie, J. 1998. R&D and global manufacturing performance. Management Science, 44 (1): p1-11.
17. Gallon, Mark, R., Stillman, M., H., & David, C. 1995. Putting core competency thinking to pratice. Technology Management, May-June: p20-28.
18. Granstrand, O., Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1997. Multi-technology corporations: why the have distributed rather than distinctive core competence. California Management Review, 39(4): p8-25.
19. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8): p1365-1379.
20. Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. 2001. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1): p101-128.
21. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: p149-164.
22. Jacobs. 1969. The Economy of Cities: London: Jonathan Cape.
23. Jesper B, S., & Stuart, T. E. 2000. Aging obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): p81-112.
24. Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.
25. Levin, R. C., Cohen, W. M., & Mowery, D. C. 1985. R&D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: New evidence on some schumpeterian hypotheses. The American Economic Review, 75(2): p20-24.
26. Lin, B. W., Lee, Y., & S. C. Hung. 2006. R&D intensity and commercialization orientation effects on financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 59: p679-685.
27. Liu, S.-J., & Shyu, J. 1997. Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis. International Journal of Technology Management 13: p661 - 680
28. MacMillan, I. C., & McGrath, R. G. 2002. Crafting R&D project portfolios. Research-Technology Management, 45(5): p48-59.
29. Malerba, F., & Orsemigo, L. 1999. Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data. Research Policy, 28: p643-660.
30. Marshall. 1890. Principles of Economics: London: Macmillan.
31. Mundlak, Y. 1978. On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46: p69-85.
32. Nelson, R. 1998. The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(1): p47-63.
33. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
34. Paci, R., & Usai, S. 2000. The role of specialisation and diversity externalities in the agglomeration of innovative activities. Rivista Italiana Degli Economisti, 2: p237-268.
35. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1997. The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2): p141-156.
36. Poynder, R. 1998. Patent information on internet. Business Information Review, 15(1): p58-67.
37. Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. 2000. 閣樓上的林布蘭: 經典傳訊文化有限公司.
38. Schankerman, M., & Pakes, A. 1986. Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the post-1950 period. The Economic Journal 96(384): p1052-1076.
39. Sharif, M. 1988. Basis for techno-economic policy analysis. Science and Public Policy 4(15): p217-229.
40. Soete, L. L. 1987. The impact of technological innovation on international trade patterns: The evidence reconsidered. Research Policy, 16(2-4): p101-130.
41. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): p509-533.
42. Thompson, V. A. 1965. Bureaucracy and innovation,. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10: p1-20.
43. Wang, Y., Lo, H.-P., & Yang, Y. 2004. The constituents of core competencies and firm performance: evidence from high-technology firms in china. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4): p249-280.
44. Zhen, D., Baruch, L., & Francis, N. 1999. Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 55(3): p20-32.
45. 王曉雯, 王泰昌, & 吳明政. 2006. 企業經營型態與研發活動績效. 管理學報, 25(2): p173-193.
46. 朱中倫. 2005. 知識經濟下台灣科技產業專利政策之研究. 東吳大學法律系碩士在職專班科技法律系碩士論文.
47. 吳思華. 1994. 策略九說－資源說, 世界經理文摘.
48. 吳美娟. 2000. 台灣IC製造業製程技術能力、專利權與績效關係之研究. 國立雲林科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文.
49. 洪世章, 余孝倫, & 劉子歆. 2002. 網路空間內電子企業之本質－探索性研究. 臺灣管理學刊, 1(2): p289-316.
50. 胡政源. 2005. 科技創新管理: 新文京開發出版.
51. 徐作聖. 2000. 創新政策概論: 華泰文化事業公司.
52. 黃宗德. 2006. 知識探索與專利績效關係之研究－以TFT-LCD產業為例. 國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文.
53. 劉尚志. 1994. 中小企業專利管理的策略與方法. 一九九八年產業科技研究發展管理研討會.
54. 賴勇成, & 洪明洲. 2006. 廠商之創新活動路徑，同形與績效間研究：以台灣半導體製造業為例. 東吳經濟商學學報, 第五十五期: p95-122.
55. 賴奎魁, & 吳曉君. 2004. 台灣半導體製造業公司技術定位之研究－使用專利資料. 商管科技季刊, 第五卷 第二期: p149-167.
56. 龔明鑫, & 林秀英. 2003. 從專利分析台灣創新能量與趨勢: 「2003年產業科技創新-關鍵年代的政策與挑戰」國際研討會.