Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

164 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY or had a patent granted or valid. The usage level of informal IP protection methods was also rather high: 27 % relied on the complexity of design, 23 % used trade secrets and/or secrecy agreements. Unsurprisingly for a service pro-actively contacting non-IPR users, there was also a significant number of users (23 %) which declared to have no deliberate strategy with respect to IPR. For IP Prédiagnosis users, the costs of IP protection (for 60 % of high and for another 20 % of medium relevance), the time to make IP protection work (for 50 % of high and 30 % of medium relevance) and an unclear cost/benefit ratio of IP (for 30 % of high and 33 % of medium relevance) were ranked as the main internal barriers perceived for using IPR (see Graph 68) – these findings are in line with those from other services; the latter aspect (unclear cost/benefit of IPR) shows that significant demand exists with respect to explaining the benefits of proper IP management (which is addressed by the service). Noteworthy is also the relatively high share of SMEs which stated that IPR is irrelevant in their business context. The lack of information (high relevance for 23, medium for 37 %), the lack of accessibility (for 20 % of high and 33 % of medium relevance), and the lack of quality of available external support services (for 3 % of high and 27 % of medium relevance) are also notable barriers (see Graph 69). The rather large share of Graph 68 IP Prédiagnosis–(Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 60 Costs of IP protection 30 50 Time to make IP protection work 33 30 unclear cost/benefit of IP protection 33 23 IPR irrelevant in business context *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 30 47 10 Lack of info on IP protection 27 17 Awareness high relevance medium relevance 33 Lack of qualified personnel Graph 69 IP Prédiagnosis–(External) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 37 23 Lack of info on available support services *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 30 33 20 Lack of accessibility of support services high relevance medium relevance 13 7 7 27 3 Organisational issues Lack of quality of available support services
companies which complained about lack of information may point to the fact that marketing efforts could be increased. User out-reach and satisfaction levels Information channels, by which users got to know about IP Prédiagnosis, were on the one hand dominated by “other” channels (43 %), which consisted mainly of information from the Chamber of Commerce and some INPI co-operation partners (RTD network) and, on the other hand, by INPI itself (27 %) (see Graph 70). This reflects to an extent the pro-active nature of the service. Surprising, however, is the fact that nobody got to know about the service from an agency, given the ties between, for example, Oseo Innovation and INPI. This may be explained by the pro-active contacting approach and the fact that the usage of the pre-diagnosis precedes the usage of other IPR (and probably also non-IPR) services. It is thus likely that many of the companies addressed have never been in contact with public business support services before. Overall speaking, users are, on average, very satisfied with IP Prédiagnosis: All aspects (delivery time, the competence of staff, the relevance of the provided information, etc.) are graded with “1.7” or better, on a scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (unsatisfied) (see Graph 71). Around 71 % of the users rate the extent of the service offerings to be adequate. On the other hand, 21 % think it is too narrow/ superficial which is, of course, in the very nature of the service – 2 days of con- Graph 70 IP Prédiagnosis–Information channels, by which users got to know about the service, percentage of respondents*) % 50 40 30 20 10 0 7 Internet Newsletter 10 Information days/conferences General newspaper 7 Professional journal *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 30 13 Personal recommendation Graph 71 IP Prédiagnosis–Satisfaction levels with different aspects of service provision, arithmetic means of grades given by respondents Overall: Service met needs and demands Delivery time Quality of provided material Relevance of provided information Competence of staff Source: User Survey, n = 30 1,6 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,7 7 Consultants Commercial banks 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 very satisfied unsatisfied Agency 27 IP Pred. itself 43 Other 165 ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES
Page 1:
PRO INNO Europe paper N° 4 BENCHMA
Page 4 and 5:
PRO INNO Europe The innovation poli
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Executive Summary 9 1 Intr
Page 9 and 10:
4. Case Study: Innovation by patent
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary Background 1. The
Page 13 and 14:
under all circumstances), but rathe
Page 15 and 16:
overall policy level, which primari
Page 17 and 18:
the fact that the business perspect
Page 19:
and evaluation). Hence, there is a
Page 22 and 23:
20 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
Page 24 and 25:
Page 27 and 28:
3 SMEs in the IPR world 3.1 SMEs an
Page 29 and 30:
amount of time (mostly up to 20 yea
Page 31 and 32:
In contrast to arrangements for pat
Page 33 and 34:
3.3 Usage Patterns of IP protection
Page 35 and 36:
industries of the ICT sector. These
Page 37 and 38:
In a study conducted by Kingston (K
Page 39 and 40:
Care must be taken that statements
Page 41 and 42:
The first step to ensure that IP ma
Page 43:
The patent troll as an SME-affine e
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 113 and 114:
7. References Abbot, A. (2006): Pat
Page 115 and 116: http://www.european-inventor.org/pd
Page 117: ANNEX I - CASE STUDIES The case stu
Page 120 and 121: 118 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 271 and 272:
Table 10 Overview of public availab
Page 273 and 274:
Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285:
European Commission Benchmarking na
Page 288:
ISBN 978-92-79-06926-0 NB-AX-07-004
show all

Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?