Chairman of the Board, NEC Corporation
This process set a legal precedent for judgments on infringement in cases of access by reverse engineering or resemblance with respect to products protected by this kind of copyright.
Consequently, based on this result, a kind of rule was established whereby, when developing a new product, only published informa-tion can be used and the human designer, who has not accessed trade secrets of similar products, needs to design using the so-called clean room method. I personally think that this was an important judgment, which confirmed the fact that copyright, which had previ-ously been rather vague with respect to manufactured products, has substantial meaning as an actual right.
This trend is also evidenced by U.S. IP policy from the 1980s onward. In my opinion the protection of microcodes by copyright can be traced back to 1980, when revision of the Copyright Law clearly established that computer programs would be protected by copyright. Subsequently, also in 1980, the “Bayh-Dole” Law was enacted. This law made it possible for universities and corporations to retain the patents for inventions developed through government funding. The Young Report of 1985 also had a significant impact on the direction of U.S. IP policy, and the 1980 revision of the Patent Law can be linked to the enactment of the WTO TRIPs Agreement of 1995, an agreement making it obligatory for programs to be pro-tected by copyright as opposed to other kinds of protection.
In conjunction with the diversification of the substance of these various kinds of intellectual property rights, it has become neces-sary when considering the standards for corporate valuation to include both the tangible assets that appear, as before, on the bal-ance sheet, and intangible assets and properties. For example, as we see below here, current conditions are giving rise to a way of think-ing which considers intellectual property in terms of a balance sheet.
In light of such circumstances, I would like to explain a little about how intellectual property strategy is developing at NEC.
It is already common knowledge that the traditional linear model, whereby basic research was followed by applied research and then practical research, is these days not necessarily always followed. As we see on the right, the contemporary situation is such that research and development are becoming synchronized, with basic research, applied research, and practical research carried out simultaneously.
This is being said to spell the demise of corporations’ central research institutes while increasing the importance of industry-acad-emia-government collaboration. For example, in the case of the new field of bioinformatics, while NEC has expertise and capability in computer science, it does not necessarily have sufficient knowledge of the bio aspect. Consequently, the parallel model is gaining atten-tion as a means of speedily acquiring knowledge about a different field.
As a result it has become necessary for corporate R&D pro-grams, which are created according to business strategy, to also be closely tied to the basic research being conducted at universities.
Accordingly, while both IP strategy and the acquisition of basic patents are important, a pressing question is how these basic patents can be linked to business operations. It is, therefore, clear that busi-ness strategy and IP strategy are becoming increasingly and more intimately connected in terms of, for example, the need to form partnerships, to address the question of how to conform new meth-ods based on the basic patents to global standards, and suchlike con-cerns.
In such circumstances, as we see here, the management of IPR portfolios becomes an important issue. In the past, corporate patent strategy has been characterized by a strong tendency toward a
quan-titative mode of thinking: how to increase numbers of applications and how to register the filed patents. However, if the costs of main-taining patents are included, it is clearly important to manage these filed and registered patents in such a way as to generate new value.
As we see here, within a matrix defined along one axis by the importance of the business and along the other by technological competence related to patents or intellectual property, it is essential to make judgments based upon positioning within this matrix; for example, whether it would be better to consider license transfer, whether a field is appropriate to consider strengthening profitability, increasing technological competence by means of alliances and suchlike, or whether, in view of both the high value of a business and a high level of technological competence, a strategic business sphere ought to be developed autonomously.
Of course, even in the case of the linear model of old, a variety of strategies were formulated and put into effect. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into the aspect of resource opening—the strate-gic usage of outside resources—and that of profit-making source opening—the strategic usage of intellectual property. While a vari-ety of measures have been devised in the cases of both the strategic use of outside resources and the strategic use of intellectual property for each phase from the creation of ideas to research, development, manufacturing and sales, there may be a slightly superior method for the use of intellectual property.
With respect to what I have just discussed, in the treatment of intellectual property rights according to the former linear model, the general pattern was commercialization followed by mass produc-tion, aiming to use a profit-making source to enhance a corpora-tion’s valuation. Today, of course, there are still such cases of built-in origbuilt-inal products, but there are also cases where built-intellectual prop-erty rights are licensed or sold, or used to enhance corporate valua-tion through informavalua-tion transmission.
By way of example, with respect to the miniature transistor that NEC announced recently, while the smallest transistor currently under mass production has dimensions of 90 nanometers, we have been able to confirm the effective operation of a transistor measur-ing only five nanometers. This kind of information transmission is arguably one way of enhancing a corporation’s valuation.
Consequently, while I have mentioned our patent as a representa-tive example, and while of course in the case of software one needs also to consider copyrights, it is necessary to think on this matter expanding further the scope of traditional research and development activities. In other words, while in previous cases patent strategy was considered with a focus on technological strategy, it will hence-forth be important to proceed by incorporating patent strategy from the stage of creation of the business plan. As we see here, one car-ries out strategic registration focusing on core technologies. Then one must consider how to manage one’s portfolios, as I mentioned previously. Further, with respect to strategy based on promoting R&D, and standardization, the two should be promoted in concert.
Unfortunately, in the case of NEC, there have been several exam-ples in which the process where patents were created based on this kind of technological strategy was not sufficiently linked to busi-ness strategy. Reflection on such cases has prompted us to consider this new type of management.
As a further new method for the exploitation of intellectual prop-erty rights, we opened the Innovation Marketplace last July. This essentially aims to present information about patents, technology and engineering services to the electronics market. We opened a marketplace designed along these lines because the presentation of patent introductions and the possibility of licensing them by means
of electric marketing was previously extremely rare.
As of the end of last year, roughly 800 users had registered, including overseas users from 36 countries. The pie chart below shows the professional sectors to which the users belong. It is entirely possible that this electronic market will lead to the realiza-tion of patent licenses, and also of NEC’s patent licenses.
However, looking from a different perspective, it is also neces-sary to consider how to guard against leakage of knowledge. These are the seven patterns for leakage set out by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in March last year. In a situation where, as I previously mentioned, corporations face the diversifica-tion of the substance of intellectual property, it is necessary to take such matters into consideration.
It is necessary to take concrete steps to implement these seven preventative measures. In Japan’s case in particular, the mobility of human resources has traditionally been extremely low, and appro-priate preventative measures against technology leakage have, therefore, perhaps not yet been devised.
In any event, the question is how to maintain balance between opening strategies and closing strategies. To give you some con-crete examples, as you see here, in the case of our corporation we keep production facilities and key devices in-house. In the case of key devices, even if we needed to rely on external sources, at the very least we would, as far as possible, try to keep production with-in the country. Further to this, the actual situation is that division of know how and then, for example, access to information or the reex-amination of the contents of applications are carried at a number of corporations. The management of intellectual property, insofar as it includes both the opening and closing aspects I just mentioned, is becoming extremely important.
I would now like to share some of my thoughts on the challenges in developing Japan as an IP nation. While these figures are often quoted, as we see here, Japan’s shares of high-tech industrial exports are continuing to decline. It is clear that Japan’s industrial competitiveness has actually fallen in competition with the U.S., China, and Asia. It is, therefore, necessary for a number of funda-mental transformations to be made.
If we consider this question in terms of the catch-up and front runner paradigm, we must also recognize the fact that the structure of competition has greatly changed.
To express this change in a word, in the catch-up structure, the focus of process innovation was on “how” to make things well. The front runner perspective, however, considers rather “what” to make, developing products that cannot be made elsewhere. While this of course relates to levels of technological advancement, at the same time it gives rise to the goal of “making something that other com-panies cannot make” by means of the creation of products protected by intellectual property rights. This, in turn, is connected to “contin-uously stimulating creative product innovation” as propounded by the Japanese government’s 2002 Science and Technology White Paper.
In any case, expectations towards the strengthening of technolog-ical development capacity were clearly shown by a questionnaire survey of management in major corporations, with the importance of corporations’ technological development capacity ranking second only to administrative deregulation. We are, therefore, likely to see continued efforts by corporations aimed at greater value-added con-tent by means of the strengthening of their own technological devel-opment capacity.
With respect to the Japanese government, Prime Minister Koizumi’s February 2002 policy speech advocated as a national
goal the strengthening of Japan’s international competitiveness by means of strategic protection and exploitation of the fruits of research and creative activities as intellectual property. Following this, the Strategic Council on Intellectual Properties was established and, in March last year, the Strategic Program for the Creation, Protection and Exploitation of Intellectual Properties was enacted.
As we see here, the program involves the activation of the phases of creation through protection to exploitation, the strengthening of contents business, which has expanded dramatically in this IT age, and the solution of problems related to the human aspect.
Building on these policies, in the 2004 draft budget, while the majority of items suffered cutbacks, the budget for the promotion of science and technology was set at 1270 billion yen, an increase of 3.3% on the 2003 budget. The Council for Science and Technology Policy’s “Plan for budgetary and human resource allocation (for sci-ence and technology in 2004)” maintains that it is absolutely essen-tial to cumulatively build up investment in science and technology.
On the other hand, however, the plan also describes the important responsibility to explain to the nation and to society how valuable national resources are being invested. It is clear that there are high expectations towards the implementation of science and technology policies based on this kind of thinking, and that it is necessary for industry to follow through by producing results.
A further development is that April 1 this year will see the insti-tutionalization of National Universities. In conjunction with this, the framework for dealing with intellectual property will change. After institutionalization, IP will no longer in principle belong to an indi-vidual inventor as is currently the case, but will belong to the insti-tution concerned, with the management structure for IP being left largely to the discretion of each institution. It is clear, therefore, that further to the creative research conducted in research laboratories, the question of how intellectual property rights should be managed will become increasingly important to planning departments.
At the same time, developments in the legal sphere are also steadily progressing. Here we have a comparison of the legal infra-structures in Japan and the U.S., and we can see, for example, that while the number of people in the legal profession in the U.S. is 940,000, in Japan it is only 20,000, roughly one forty-seventh.
Moreover, on the matter of patent personnel, when one considers the numbers of patent applications and filings, it would seem that Japan remains shorthanded. On the other hand, because it is likely that disputes involving intellectual property rights caused by the recent heightened awareness of rights or by intensified competition with developing countries will increase hereafter, the foundation of an IP High Court is planned, in order to establish a legal system that can handle technology. The current state of affairs is one where these kinds of measures, that is to say, the implementation of gov-ernment budget steps, the reform of universities and the establish-ment of a legal infrastructure, are steadily taking shape.
Consequently, in light of all these factors, in order to further pro-pel Japan towards becoming an IP nation, it is clear that industry also needs to come up with answers to the question of how to bal-ance the triangle of the economy, technology, and law, and, more-over, how to develop society by the exploitation of knowledge and wisdom through this framework.
This concludes my speech. Thank you very much for your kind attention.
ありがとうございます。皆様おはようございます。まずス ポンサーの方々に対し、今日この会議にご招待いただきまし たことへの感謝の意を表します。またＮＥＣの佐々木さんに は、ＮＥＣにとっての情報技術（ＩＴ）部門の知的財産につ いて、非常に興味深く刺激的なお話をしていただいたことに お礼申し上げます。このお話から私も多くのことを学びまし た。私の講演から、産業革新と知的財産管理への示唆につい て、私たちの考えの中に多くの共通点を見つけていただけれ ば幸いです。
これは、今日の講演で皆様にお伝えする内容のあらましで す。私も佐々木氏がお話を始められたところから入り、私た ちが研究開発について考えるときに使う知的モデルの歴史を 取り上げます。というのも、それが今日お話しする知的財産 の源になるものだからです。このモデルの起源に触れたあと、
このモデルに関する批判を取り上げます。そして、多くの産 業では、私がオープン・イノベーションと呼ぶ新しいモデル を必要としているという提案を行ないます。この背景となる 一つの側面は、開かれたモデルに移行するにつれて、企業に とっては、知的財産開発を方向づけ、外部の知的財産利用を 勢いづけ、さらには知的財産を、自社と他社の事業における 知識と知恵の利用に結びつけるために、そのビジネスモデル がますます重要性を増すようになっていくことであると考え ています。
まず、20世紀中の多くの企業の研究開発プロセスを説明し ていると思われる、理想的な類型についてお話させてくださ い。私はこれをクローズド（閉じた）・イノベーションシス テムと呼んでいます。その理由をご説明しましょう。この図 の左側は、ある企業が自社の科学技術基盤を利用して研究を 開始します。そしてそれらの研究プロジェクトはここで漏斗 として示したところに入ります。この漏斗を他の言葉で表現 しているのをよく耳にされているでしょう。これはポートフ ォリオやパイプラインと呼ばれることがありますし、ステー ジゲート・プロセスと称されることもあります。しかしすべ ての事例において、これは一方通行になっています。この場 合、成果は新たな製品やサービスとしてその企業の市場に出 て行きます。
このモデルは長い間非常にうまく機能してきましたので、
このモデルを変える必要性について説明する前に、このモデ ルの多くの成功事例を押さえておきたいと思います。佐々木 氏は、情報技術におけるビッグバンについて言及されました。
これはこのモデルの成功事例のひとつですが、このモデルが 非常にうまく機能していたと私が思うのは次のような理由か
らです。企業が自社の研究開発によって達成した基盤技術の ブレークスルーは、新たな製品やサービスを生み出し、この 企業の売上や利益を増大させました。それがさらなる研究開 発への再投資につながり、技術の次のブレークスルーにつな がっていたのです。どのようにして有効な再強化サイクルと なっているのか、お分かりいただけるでしょう。
佐々木氏が示されたものに加えて、いくつかの例を挙げる ために、まず19世紀の化学産業について見ていただきたいと 思います。この分野では、ドイツの化学産業が社内研究所を 最初に設立して新たな染料を作り、化学物質の特性の研究と 商業化を進めて新しい製品につながったと、多くの経済史研 究者は考えています。そしてこのモデルはデュポンのような 企業によって、米国をはじめ他の国々に取り入れられ、米国 における研究組織体制のひな型となりました。
電気分野では、米国のトーマス・エジソンが、後のゼネラ ル・エレクトリック社とともに最初の社内研究開発工場を作 り、大きな成功を収めました。石油産業では、初代ジョン・
ロックフェラーが、石油において規模と多角化の巨大経済を 作り上げ、自然な独占につながり、スタンダード・オイル社 となりました。後に米国政府によって解体されましたが、彼 らが作った研究所の研究成果から独占が生まれたのです。
第二次世界大戦中は科学技術が大きく流動化しました。し かし非常に重要なのは、米国ではこの流動化が政府によって 国営化されなかったということです。正確に言えば、大学や 企業の研究所は、米国政府から研究資金を受ける独立した存 在として維持されましたが、研究者たちは米国政府の公務員 にはならなかったのです。そして戦争が終結した時には、多 くの大学や企業の研究所が、既に大きく発展した技術能力を 有するようになっていたのです。これが大変強力な知的資源 の基盤となり、第二次世界大戦後の米国経済の力強い成長に つながったと考えています。
ハーバードビジネススクールには、アルフレッド・チャン ドラーという大変有名な事業史家がいました。チャンドラー 教授は、20世紀における米国企業の隆盛は、これらの企業が 研究開発の管理を通じて実現した規模の経済と多角化の経済 によるものだとしています。ここではお見せできませんが、
日本の経済史においても、第二次世界大戦後から20世紀末に かけて日本企業が遅れを取り戻せたのは、それら企業の研究 所においてその規模と多角化の経済から多くの恩恵を受けた からだと言えるでしょう。
このように、このモデルは非常に長い間成功を収めてきた のです。しかし、この閉じたモデルの論理には隠れた前提が