我國大學技術移轉之法制與成效—以美國、日本為比較對象

Abstract

技術移轉對於國家經濟發展有著深遠的影響，其重要性不亞於技術本身的研發。有鑑於大學蘊藏著豐富的發明、具備高度專業的研發人員與研究生，大學逐漸在與產業的技術移轉中扮演重要的角色。特別是從1980年代美國成功的經驗之後，如何將大學技術導入產業界，成為各國政府努力的方向。 美國技術移轉的濫觴起源於1980年國會通過的拜杜法案，對於聯邦政府資助研究計畫，而由大學執行所產生的研發成果，本法讓各個大學有選擇保留該成果的權利。大多數的學者認為，拜杜法案的成功，對於推動科技發展有著不可抹滅的功勞。舉例來說，從1981年立法後到1992年之間，大學專利授權件數至少有十倍的成長，而授權金收入則成長了四倍。而這個成果，在1991到1995年間，又向上翻了一倍。 另一方面，日本的大學在國立大學法人化後，開始熱衷於將技術專利化，逐漸傾向以智慧財產權方式為技術移轉。在政府方面，從1990年代後期，開始推動一系列的法制，促進大學與產業間的交流。例如，1998年的大學技術移轉促進法（或稱為TLO法），以立法方式促進大學與產業之間以契約移轉技術。以及，1999年的產業活力再生特別措置法，讓大學保留專利權，因此被稱為日本的拜杜法。 為了增進臺灣的經濟競爭力，臺灣政府在1999年施行科學技術基本法，師法日本的科學技術基本法，訂定推動科學技術發展的指導方針與原則。並且，在當中的第六條採取美國拜杜法模式，將原先國有的研發成果下放給大學。而在法案通過後，大學得以將研發成果授權予產業界，從事更進一步的研發與商品化，並以此收取權利金。如此法制確實達到大學專利應用的良好成效。 然而，有質疑論者認為技術移轉會對大學帶來了負面的影響，諸如利益衝突與知識近用限制等。相反地，亦有論者認為，為了促進產學合作，應鬆綁目前科學技術基本法對於大學技術授權的限制。除此之外，若與美國及日本的大學技術移轉成效比較，會發現臺灣大學在這方面表現尚有所不足。 本篇論文，欲以美國與日本的經驗作為借鏡，著重在兩個主題上進行研究。首先，試圖對於現行法制的缺陷與技術移轉帶來的副作用，提供解決方案。其次，為臺灣產學之間的技術移轉，找尋更效率的途徑。 最後，本篇論文期待能澄清對於大學技術移轉成效的迷思，儘管大學在金錢層面上收到的回饋十分微薄，但更應當被重視的，是大學從事技術移轉所帶來的其他好處，包括大學與產業更進一步的研發合作，創造的就業機會，大學師生習得的實務經驗。儘管目前大學技術移轉，仍存在著許多法制上瑕疵與負面影響，等待立法與行政機關的重視與解決，但本文作者對臺灣未來大學技術移轉的發展仍充滿著信心與希望。

Technology transfer has a profound impact on a growth of a nation’s economy. It’s existing importance is not less than the invention and development of technology. Nowadays, universities are gaining its spotlight within the development of industry technology transfer, by seizing a handful of innovative inventions, and containing skilled professors and graduates in many professional areas. Especially since the 1980s when we see many successful experiences in the U.S., the transfer of technology from universities to industries has become a significant goal for governments across nations. The inflection point of U.S. technology transfer from universities to industries occurred in 1980, when the U.S. Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act. This law allows any university to retain title to inventions arising from its federally funded research, and to grant licenses. It is widely agreed by scholars that the Bayh-Dole Act has been a success, particularly in terms of stimulating technology transfer and patent applications. For example, the number of licenses granted by universities has increases at least ten-fold, and royalties paid to universities almost quadrupled between 1981 to1992, and again doubled between 1991 and 1995. On the other hand, Japanese universities have enthusiastically embraced academic patenting, since the Incorporation of national universities, by increasing their reliance on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) strategies to do technology transfer. At the governmental level, many regulations have been enacted since the mid-1990s in order to promote university-industry relationships. For example, the 1998 Law to Promote the Transfer of University Technologies (the TLO Law) legitimized and facilitated transparent and contractual transfers of Technologies from universities to industries, and the 1999 Law of Special Measures to Revive Industry, which is called the Japanese Bayh-Dole Act, allowed universities to retain patent right. Similar to the Science and Technology Basic Act of Japan, the Taiwan government enacted the Science and Technology Basic Act in 1999, for the purpose of enhancing the competitiveness of Taiwan’s Economy, to set guidelines and principles for the promotion of science and technology development. In particular, the section 6 of this Act adopted the Bayh-Dole Act of the U.S. to release the ownership of R&D results from the government to universities. After the passage of this Act, universities are allowed to receive royalties from licensing patent rights to private industry for further development and commercialization. Indeed, it resulted in a significant increase of patent application by universities. However, some critics argued that detrimental effects of technology transfer will also impact universities, such as conflicts of interest and restriction on accessibility to knowledge. In contrast, some scholars, in favor of university-industry relationship, advise the legislators to ease the restrictions on licensing universities’ inventions in the Science and Technology Basic Act. Moreover, according to accountable statistics, the performance of technology transfer in Taiwan’s universities is not mature enough in comparison to the U.S. and Japan. To further discuss, using the U.S. and Japan as reference, this thesis primarily focuses on two topics. First, to provide certain suggestions on how to deal with the legislative defects and control side effects from technology transfer. Secondly, to find a way to improve the efficiency of technology transfer from universities to industries in Taiwan. In the end, this thesis hopes to clarify the misconception on the effectiveness of Technology Transfer. Although the financial return for universities from technology transfer is, on average, fairly modest, but the benefits should be emphasized on other perspectives other than financial results. For example, new medicines and other important products for the public; industrial collaborations based on universities-owned IP; job creation; and the development of entrepreneurial skills by faculty and students. In spite of the existing legislative obstacles and side effects, which should be noticed by legislators and administrators, the future of technology transfer between universities and industries in Taiwan is still believed to be promising.