Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

Roadshow users/attendants most frequently took advantage of the service offerings
of patent attorneys and chambers of commerce (see Graph 89). As with other
services analysed, the high usage rate of patent attorneys underlines the significance
of this type of service provider for IPR-affine SMEs; the high role chambers of
commerce play can be attributed to relatively well working collaboration patterns
of serv.ip with the chambers – the latter helped significantly in organising the
roadshow events. Surprising is the relatively low share of users who made use of
national development agencies, despite their high significance for R&D funding in
the Austrian innovation system. This may point to particularly low cooperation
levels between serv.ip and the agencies; an assumption which is substantiated
further in the course of the user survey and also in statements of IPR experts.
Express search users made frequent use of national and regional agencies, 4 and 3
users, respectively; 5 out of 12 users took at most occasional advantage of the
patent office.
As regards factors hampering innovation activities, the roadshow users/attendants
complained mostly about economic risks (for 55 % of high and 32 % of medium
relevance), high innovation costs (for 45 % of high and for further 43 % of medium
relevance), and financial sources associated with innovation projects (for 34 % of
high and 43 % of medium relevance) (see Graph 90). Almost the same result
patterns were found for express search users.
Between 2003 and 2005, the majority of the roadshow users/attendants stated that
they used at least some IP protection method and employed a variety of methods
at the same time; only few (5 %) had no deliberate IPR strategy in place (see Graph
91). Thus, a high share of attendants can be seen as experienced IPR users which
is – for an IPR awareness raising campaign – somewhat of a surprise. Comments
gathered in course of the user survey suggest that many of the attracted
experienced IPR users took advantage of the event because they wanted to inform
themselves on possible news and updates concerning the IPR framework.
Also qualitative statements point to two distinct user groups: “IPR freshmen” with
relatively little knowledge on IPR and “IPR seniors” with considerable IPR knowhow.
This heterogeneity illustrates that user segmentation may be an important
issue for awareness raising campaigns, given the broadness of the topic of
intellectual property rights: While overall satisfaction levels were not bad (see also
below), some of the experienced users who looked for answers to specific questions
and/or wanted updates on e.g. new legal procedures were a bit disappointed to
not get such information. For example, some users stated that ““specific information
Graph 90 serv.ip–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005,
percentage of respondents*), roadshow users
%
100
80
60
40
20
0
43
45
Innovation
costs
32
55
Economic risks
43 30
27
Regulations &
standards
34
Finance
*) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 44
27
20 20 25
16 14 14 9
Lack of market
info
Lack of
qualified
personnel
high relevance medium relevance
Organisational
issues
Client
responsiveness
27
2
Lack of
technology info
189
ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES