進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200914093380
論文名稱(中文) 專利取得宣告之市場反應--專利重要性與產業差異對企業獲得額外報酬的影響
論文名稱(英文) Market response of patent grants announcement: the effect of patent importance and industry difference
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 企業管理學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Business Administration
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生(中文) 王詩淳
研究生(英文) Shih-chun Wang
電子信箱 r4695117@mail.ncku.edu.tw
學號 r4695117
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 39頁
口試委員 口試委員-劉啟群
口試委員-許永明
口試委員-陳聖賢
指導教授-張紹基
中文關鍵字 複雜產業  簡單產業  自我引證  向前引證  專利引證  專利取得宣告 
英文關鍵字 complex industry  discrete industry  self citation  forward citation  patent citation  patent grants announcement 
學科別分類
中文摘要 專利是投資人判斷公司未來盈餘的領先指標。本研究探討當公司宣告專利獲准時,股票市場對於此一宣告的反應,以及專利取得宣告對公司異常報酬的影響。此外,我們更進一步探討個別專利訊息如專利引證、專利所屬公司之產業對於宣告的異常報酬是否存在相關性,並試圖找出專利的重要性對於專利宣告反應是否有顯著的關聯、以及專利宣告異常報酬是否存在產業的差異性。本研究的結果顯示,投資人對於專利取得宣告的反應為正顯著,證明了專利取得對於公司價值存在著正面的增值效果,而專利重要性與產業效果對於專利宣告的異常報酬也有顯著的相關性。透過回歸模式我們發現向前引證(forward citation)次數與專利宣告異常報酬存在顯著的正相關,由於向前引證是證明專利重要性的重要指標,因此驗證了投資人有能力在專利宣告時即對專利的重要性做出正確的判斷。此外,本研究亦發現專利指標在不同的產業存在著不同的效果,例如向前引證和自我引證在複雜產業(complex industry)中與專利宣告報酬存在顯著的正相關性,然而在簡單產業(discrete industry)則未顯示顯著的正相關。至於複雜產業與簡單產業間的平均異常報酬差距並未存在顯著的差異,代表專利取得宣告的異常報酬程度不因產業別而有顯著的差異。
英文摘要 Patents are leading indicators that investors apply directly to future earning potential comparing with other backward-looking indicators. This study focuses on the wealth effect when firms announce that they have successfully granted a patent. We also probe into the detailed information of patents such as patent citation and industry category to find out that: (i) does patent importance have any connection with patent grants announcement return and; (ii) how the industry effect refers to the degree of market reaction. The result of this study shows that investors respond significantly positively to patent grants announcement. Moreover, patent importance and industry differences also contain abundant information within the relationship between patent grants announcement and stock market return. By the regression model we find that forward citations successfully represent the importance of patents and exhibit strong correlation with abnormal return on patent grants announcement. We also find that patent importance indicators in different industries show diversified level of influences to stock abnormal return—forward citation and self citation present significant impacts on abnormal stock return in complex industry, while in discrete industry they present no significant impact on abnormal stock return. However, the mean differences between discrete and complex industry is not remarkable, meaning that the degree of abnormal return on patent grants announcement seems not to be affected by industry factors.
論文目次 Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research background 1
1.2 Research motivation and purpose 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review 5
2.1 R&D, patent, and market response 5
2.2 Patent importance and market response 6
2.2.1. Backward citation 8
2.2.2. Self Citation 9
2.2.3. Forward citation 9
Chapter 3 Data and Methodology 14
3.1 Sample 14
3.2 The event-study and measurement 15
3.3 The Z test on difference between two means—discrete and complex industries 16
3.4 The regression analysis design 18
3.5 Sample description 21
Chapter 4 Empirical Results 23
4.1 Abnormal return of patent grants announcement 23
4.2 Industry effect on abnormal return 25
4.3 Patent importance and abnormal return 26
4.3.1 Patent importance and abnormal return in whole sample 26
4.3.2 Patent importance and abnormal return in discrete industry 29
4.3.3 Patent importance and abnormal return in complex industry 29
Chapter 5 Conclusion 34


Tables and Figures
Table 1 Statistics of discrete and complex industry 17
Table 2 Distribution of patent grants announcement by industry and by year 21
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics 22
Table 4 Abnormal return of patent grants announcement from day -3 to day 3 relative to announcing date (day 0) 23
Table 5 Cumulative abnormal return of patent grants announcement 24
Table 6 Z test on difference between two means in discrete and complex 26
Table 7 Overall sample: Simple regression 1 to 3 and multi regressions 4 to 6 of cumulative abnormal returns from day -1 to day 1, 1996-2002 31
Table 8 Discrete industry sample: Simple regression 1 to 3 and multi regressions 4 to 6 of cumulative abnormal returns from day -1 to day 1, 1996-2002 32
Table 9 Complex industry sample: Simple regression 1 to 3 and multi regressions 4 to 6 of cumulative abnormal returns from day -1 to day 1, 1996-2002 33
Figure 1 Abnormal return on patent grants announcement by date related to announcing date (day 0) 24
Figure 2 Cumulative abnormal return on patent grants announcement 25
參考文獻 Aboody, D., and Lev, B.. 2000. Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. The Journal of Finance, LV(6): pp. 2747-2766.
Acs, Z. J., and Audretsch, D.B., 1988, Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4).
Amir, A., and Lev, B. . 1996. Value-relevance of nonfinancial information: The wireless communications industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22(1-3): 3-30.
Austin, D. H. 1993. An Event-Study Approach to Measuring Innovative Output: The Case of Biotechnology. The American Economics Review, 83(2): 253-258.
Behn, R. D. 1996. Public Management: Should It Strive to be Art, Science, or Engineering? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1): 91-123.
Brown, S. J., and Warner, J. B. 1985. Using daily stock returns: The case of event studies. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(1): 3-31.
Chakrabarti, A. K. 1991. Competition in high technology: analysis of patents of US, Japan, UK, France, West Germany, and Canada. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(1): 78-84.
Chan, L. K. C., Lakonishok J., and Sougiannis T. 2001. The Stock Market Valuation of Research and Development Expenditures. The Journal of Finance, 56: 2431-2456.
Coe, D. T., and Helpman, E. 1995. International R&D Spillovers. NBER Working Paper, No. W4444
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R.R., and Walsh, J.P. 2000. Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552.
Deng, Z., Lev, B., and Narin, F. 1999. Science and Technology as Predictors of Stock Performance. Financial Analysts Journal(55): pp. 20-32.
Erturk, E., Lansford, B. and Muscarella, C.J. 2003. Patent Announcements and CorporateValue. Annual Meeting of Financial Management Association.
Griliches, Z. 1981. Market value, R&D and patents. Economic Letters, 7: 183-187.
Griliches, Z. 1984. Comments in Griliches (ed.). R&D, patents, and productivity. The University of Chicago Press: 1-19.
Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 20: 1661-1707.
Griliches Z., a. S. J. 1963. Inventing and maximizing. American Economic Review, 53(4): 725-729.
Hall, B. H. 1993. Industrial Research During the 1980s: Did the Rate of Return Fall? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Micro, Micro(2).
Hall, B. H., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. 2001. The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper, W8498.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe A., and Trajtenberg M. 2005. Market value and patent citations. RAND journal of Economics, 36(1): pp. 16-38.
Heeley, M. B., Matusik, S.F., and Jain,N. 2007. Innovation, Appropriability, and the Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): pp. 209-225.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., and Trajtenberg, M. 1997. University versus Corporate Patents: A Window on the Basicness of Invention. Review of Economics and Statistics, XXX(1): 119-127.
Ittner, C. D. and Larcker, D. F. 1998 Innovations in performance measurement: Trends and research implications. Journal of Management Accounting Research 10: 205-238.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., and Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Quaterly Journal of Economics, 108: 577-598.
Jaffe, A. B., and Trajtenberg, M. 2002. Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kash, D. E., and Kingston, W. 2001. Patents in a world of complex technologies. Science and public policy, 28(1): 11-22.
Kusonki, K., Nanaka, I., and Nagata, A. 1998. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms: A conceptual framework and empirical findings. Organization Science, 9(6): 699-718.
Lanjouw, J. O., and Schankerman, M. 1999. The Quality of Ideas: Meauring Innovation with Multiple Indicators. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7345, Working Paper No. 7345.
Lanjouw, J. O., and Schankerman, M. 2004. Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with multiple Indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(April): 441-465.
Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Gilbert, R., and Griliches, Z. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3): 783-831.
Merges, R. P., and Nelson, R.R. 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review, 90(4): 839–916.
Nadiri, M. I., and Kim, S. 1996. R&D, Production Structure and Productivity Growth: A Comparison of the US, Japanese and Korean Manufacturing Sectors. NBER Working Paper, No. 7552.
Narin, F., and D. Olivastro. 1988. Technology Indicators Based on Patents and Patent Citations. Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology.
Pake, A. Z. 1985. On Patent, RandD, and the Stock Market Rate of Return. Journal of Political Economy, 93(2): 390-409.
Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., and Marsh, L. 2006. Breakthrough Innovations in the U.S. Biotechnology Industry: The Effect of Technological Space and Geographic Origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27: pp. 369-388.
Pincus, M., and Rajgopal, S. . 2002. The interaction of accrual management and hedging: Evidence from oil and gas firms. The Accounting Review 71: 127-160.
Rajgopal, S., Shevlin,T., and Venkatachalam, M. . 2003. Does the Stock Market Fully Appreciate the Implications of Leading Indicators for Future Earnings? Evidence from Order Backlog. Review of Accounting Studies, 8: 461-492.
Rosenkopf, L., and Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: boundary spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4): 287–306.
Scherer, F. M. 1965. Firm, size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. American Economic Review 55: 1097-1125.
Scherer, F. M. 1983. The Propensity to Patent. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1(1): 107-128.
Schmookler J., a. O. B. 1962. The Economics of Research and Development: Determinants of Inventive Activity. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 52(2): 165-176.
Scotchmer, S. 1991. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Innovation and the Patent Law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 29-41.
Shane, S. 2001. Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation. Management Science, 47(2): 205–220.
Sougiannis, B. L. a. T. 1996. The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(1): 107-138.
Trajtenberg, M. 1990. Product Innovations, Price Indices and the (Mis)Measurement of Economic Performance. NBER Working Papers 3261.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-06-19起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-06-19起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw