یک معیار مالکیت معنوی جدید برای فعالیت های استاندارد سازی  A new intellectual property metric for standardization activities

1. Introduction As R&D policy evaluation relating to technology standards is still in the exploratory phase (Tassey, 2003), a method and concept for management of innovation and standardization is developed in this study. This study presents a new intellectual property metric. The study analyzes its nature and application to R&D and innovation policies. Moreover, the study normatively redefines the conventional notion of intellectual property. A key new concept— integrated intellectual property (integrated IP)—is a comprehensive form for addressing intellectual property and standardization. As the first contribution, the proposed model analyzes how the fusion between patents and standards affects innovation, and the model is described in vector equation form. This study analyzes industrial sectors according to how strongly patents and standards are related. It models revenue in a manner applicable to individual projects through which the merits and shortcomings of the standard-essential patent (SEP) formation are discussed and reveals the “SEP paradox,” which means SEPs are not necessarily the most revenue generating condition and can be an obstacle to innovation when standards are involved. The conception of a “negative patent,” which expresses the relative effect between patents and standards, is also presented in the model. The second contribution of this study is to focus on standardization within R&D organizations rather than within standard development organizations (SDOs). The policy evaluation methodology for standardization is thought to have an established framework. In reality, that is not the case. For instance, data for limited types of output factors (e.g., the current number of de jure standards) are available (International Organization for Standardization, 2006). However, data for such inputs as financial and human resources have not yet been provided nor has a suitable measurement method been determined. Nevertheless, standards now require special attention in policy analysis. For example, projects funded by the Japanese government are required to report standardization achievements so as to evaluate R&D outcomes. R&D projects within Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry usually run for three years, and final achievements, including standardization results, are evaluated. At the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, a Japanese government-funded R&D body, evaluation of R&D achievements also includes standardization results. At both organizations, however, the scope of evaluation remains limited to such outputs as the number of proposed standards. The EU initiated a policy program for demand-side innovation in the 2000s, and assessment of the impact of standardization is now a major element in policy review (Edler et al., 2012). However, impact assessment remains limited to such qualitative questions as “Are EU standards becoming international standards?” (Edler et al., 2012). The methodology for assessing the impact of standards is not necessarily well developed in the US despite efforts spanning recent decades (Tassey, 2003). R&D evaluations by the National Institute of Standards and Technology include estimations of how research impacts standards (Edler et al., 2012). However, the relationship between R&D as an input factor and standardization as an output factor has not been discussed persuasively from a quantitative standpoint.