Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

212 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY As can be seen from Graph 112, VIVACE users employed a high number of formal IPR protection methods between 2003 and 2005. Regarding patents, half of the users filed for a patent or had a patent granted or valid. This large share seems not surprising considering the fact that funding for patent applications, especially for international ones, has been made available under the umbrella of the VIVACE programme. In addition, 44 % of the users stated that they used design patterns and/or utility models to protect their IP; 34 % registered trade marks. A considerable high number of users also employed informal protection methods, i.e. 52 % relied on trade secrets, 36 % tried to maintain a lead time advantage over competitors (see Graph 113). For VIVACE users, the costs of IP protection (for 20 % of high and for another 34 % of medium relevance) are the main barrier perceived for using IPR. External barriers towards the availability of support services are not considered to be a major obstacle. However, the lack of information, quality and accessibility of external services has at least medium relevance for around 20 % of the companies surveyed. User reach-out and satisfaction levels VIVACE used various information channels and sources to spread the information about the service offerings, including information offered on the internet (56 %) and/or presented at conferences (40 %). A considerable high share of users heard about the service also through the providing institution itself (38 %). Furthermore, and a little bit Graph 113 (Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 34 20 Costs of IP protection 34 28 24 26 16 Time to make IP protection work 4 6 6 4 Lack of info on IP protection *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Lack of qualified personnel unclear cost/benefit of IP protection 14 2 10 8 8 Awareness high relevance medium relevance IPR irrelevant in business context Graph 114 Information channels, by which users got to know about the service, percentage of respondents*) % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 56 Internet 24 Newsletter 40 Information days/conferences 10 General newspaper 38 Professional journal *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 30 Personal recommendation 24 Consultants 6 Commercial banks 36 Agency 38 VIVACE itself Organisational issues 6 Other
surprising, some companies got to know about the service through classical media, i.e. professional journals (38 %) and newspapers (10 %) (see Graph 114). Overall speaking, VIVACE users were generally satisfied with the key aspects of the service which were graded with “2.0” or better, on a scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (unsatisfied) (see Graph 115). Furthermore, around 80 % consider the extent of the service offerings to be adequate; 62 % believe the administrative effort to use the service is quite low. On the other hand, 24 % think it is too high. Spatial distance does not seem to be a problem. For 64 % of the users, the benefits of using this service are adequate to the efforts; 22 % state that the benefits clearly outweigh the efforts. Additionality of the service In order to answer the question whether a support service works or does not work, one should inquire into the added value of the service – i. e., what would have happened in case the service were absent. This is done in order to isolate a “net positive effect” as opposed to things which would have happened anyway, despite of the service. Similarly, also other types of changes incurred within the enterprise, as a result of using the service, are to be recorded (these types of changes are referred to as “behavioural additionality”). The VIVACE programme has achieved rather low additionality effects (see Graph 116): 11 % of the undertakings would not have been carried out at all in the absence of support from the service. In addition, 27 % of the projects would have been carried out but with support from another financial source. On the other side, Graph 115 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 = 50 1,8 1,8 1,8 1,8 2,0 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 very satisfied unsatisfied Graph 116 Additionality of the financial subsidy, percentage of respondents pure additionality 27% 5% Source: User Survey, n = 50 11% 11% 14% "pure" deadweight losses 32% Undertaking carried out without any change/modification Undertaking carried out at a later stage Undertaking carried to a smaller scope (e.g. less geographical coverage) Undertaking carried out with other sources of finance Undertaking NOT carried out - different IP instrument used instead Undertaking NOT carried out at all 213 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:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165: 162 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?