42中英文雙語外文文獻翻譯成品 探究研發(fā)投入以及進出口業(yè)績對專利價值的影響

1、<p>　　外文標題：Exploring Influence of R&D Investment, Import and Export Performances to Patent Value</p><p>　　外文作者：CW Kuo ， HN Su</p><p>　　文獻出處:Portland International Conference on Manageme

2、nt of Engineering and Technology , 2015 :1191-1199</p><p>　　英文2178單詞， 11897字符，中文3109漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　Exploring Influence of R&D

3、Investment, Import and Export Performances to Patent Value</p><p>　　Abstract--Patent valuation has been an important research topic in a globalized knowledge economy where intangible assets and international

4、ization plays crucial roles. The objective of this study is to understand how the two factors, which are 1) intangible assets: patenting activities and R&D investment, 2) tangible goods: international import and expo

5、rt, influence patent value. More specifically, several patent information, e.g. Number of Patent, Number of Inventors, Number of Patent Citation </p><p>　　1．INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　Intellectual pr

6、operty rights have gradually became a popular issue in recent years. In several empirical studies, it has been demonstrated that there is a close association and considerable correlation between patent and economic perfo

7、rmance in international markets.[1]–[4] For instance, based on a time longitudinal analysis of those countries selected for this paper, demonstrated that patent explained import and export streams. More speci?cally, this

8、 paper raises the question by means of whethe</p><p>　　There have many patent litigation issues in recent years because we are in a globalized knowledge economy. For example, companies that perform cross-bor

9、der trade in different countries often sue each other for patent infringement in order to protect the product. According to the research for litigation patents[5], which are considered more valuable patents than non-liti

10、gation patents, so this paper used litigation patents to be the main condition for searching data.</p><p>　　LITERATURE REVIEW</p><p>　　Macroeconomic interaction with patents</p><p>

11、;　　With the growing trend toward globalization of trade, different countries according to their internal factors may have significant impact on FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) [9][10][11]. International patent behavior m

12、ay have intensive and positive effect in international trade and exports investment [3]. Some studies have shown that macroeconomic patent statistics may rectify the influence generate from global knowledge[4]. In this s

13、tudy, we used the research method mainly cited from [1], discov</p><p>　　B Patent as the main analytical basis element</p><p>　　A large amount of research shows patents are valuable indicators [

14、12]–[15]. In recent years, there are more and more transnational patent litigation issues emerging from development of globalization. In addition, litigation patents are more valuable patent has been proposed [5]. In thi

15、s topic, reference from [5], also investigate litigation patents, and discuss if there is value in litigation patents or not.</p><p>　　C Globalization R&D activities with patent performance</p>&l

16、t;p>　　In the global knowledge economy, globalization R&D behavior surfaced in various countries frequently[16]. Some studies have shown that patenting activity is a direct product under R&D[17], and have a sta

17、ndard intellectual property rights system can provide an appropriate surrounding for multinationals[18][19]. In the globalized environment, the higher the technology has a better competitive advantage [20]. In this study

18、, we also used R&D performance to demonstrate the effect between cross-border</p><p>　　RESEARCH METHOD</p><p>　　In this section, US litigation patents are used as the main condition [5]and t

19、he US is selected as the target country[21],[22] this gives an expression how to explore the influence of these three factors: 1) R&D Investment[17], [23]–[26], 2) Import and Export Performances, 3) Patent Indi

20、cators, to patent value because of these reasons: First, the US is one of the major markets in the world.[27] Second, the USPTO has sufficient quantity to collect patents around the world, with various fie</p>&l

21、t;p>　　This study first downloads all USPTO utility patents issued from 1976 to 2013 (4,667,855 utility patents in total), then selected the top twenty countries annually cited by litigation patents from the US. The re

22、ason why this study selected those twenty countries is that this study wants to know the globalized knowledge economy mainly associated with the US, and from the results, these countries are (Korea, Rep. , Israel, Italy,

23、 Sweden, Finland, Australia, Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong SAR, Irela</p><p>　　In order to explore the influence of R&D performance and cross-border trade to patent value, this paper also used some stati

24、stic methods like correlation coefficient and multiple regression analysis to demonstrate the relationship of those countries that this study chose.</p><p>　　RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</p><p>　　This

25、 study compared some of those twenty countries in Fig. 2 to explore the linkage between intangible assets and tangible assets. First, this study used UN-COMTRADE database to select the US cross-border trade data with the

26、 world (all trade partners in the world), which illustrates that the US total trade volume has been on an upward trend since 1996, but it suddenly dropped in 2009, this could be attributed to the recession around the wor

27、ld.[28][29]</p><p>　　Apparently, the US had a high trade deficit, this implies that US economy mainly depended on import and the difference was larger over the years, the US needed more commodities from othe

28、r countries to satisfy its demands. </p><p>　　Furthermore, in order to know whether the R&D performance has been indirectly effected we need to explore whether the patent has value or not, this paper use

29、d the information which from World Bank database (comprises a number of R&D and intellectual property fee[30]), then this paper chose the top seven ranking countries that cited US litigation patents using the years b

30、etween 2005 and 2011. </p><p>　　We will begin our discussion by reviewing the empirical findings, and then turn to the general theoretical issues. These results may be explained by considering the globalized

31、 knowledge economy, because we are faced with the globalization of the trade environment in recent years. Accordingly, our analysis was designed to interpret the influence between intangible assets (litigation patents va

32、lue) and tangible assets (international trade and R&D investment). </p><p>　　Our research suggests, albeit tentatively, two potentially important influences of the globalization of economic performance o

33、n the use of examining patent values, are international trade and R&D investment respectively. The results of this study partially support the notion that international trade and R&D performance has explanatory p

34、ower in exploring patent value. Having acknowledged the limitations of the globalization performance observation data, we can nevertheless confirm that certain pe</p><p>　　REFERENCES</p><p>　　[1

35、]R. Frietsch, P. Neuhäusler, T. Jung, and B. Van Looy, “Patent indicators for macroeconomic growth—the value of patents estimated by export volume,” Technovation, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 546–558, Sep. 2014.</p>&

36、lt;p>　　[2]T. Ushijima, “Patent rights protection and Japanese foreign direct investment,” Res. Policy, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 738–748, Apr. 2013.</p><p>　　[3]C.-H. Yang and N.-F. Kuo, “Trade-related influenc

37、es, foreign intellectual property rights and outbound international patenting,” Res. Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 446–459, Apr. 2008.</p><p>　　[4]H. Grupp and U. Schmoch, “Patent statistics in the age of glob

38、alisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 377–396, Apr. 1999.</p><p>　　[5]H.-N. Su, C. M.-L. Chen, and P.-C. Lee, “Patent litigat

39、ion precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010,” Scientometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 181–195,Apr. 2012.</p><p>　　[6]H. Choe, D. H. Lee, I. W. Seo

40、, and H. D. Kim, “Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: Country, institution, and technology field,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 26, pp. 492–505, Oct. 2013.</p><p

41、>　　[7]V. Dequiedt and B. Versaevel, “Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives,” Int. Rev. Law Econ., vol. 36, pp. 59–69, Oct. 2013.</p><p>　　[8]A. G. Hu, “The Regionalization of Knowledge Flows in East

42、 Asia: Evidence from Patent Citations Data,” World Dev., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1465–1477, Sep. 2009.</p><p>　　[9]J. Hsu and Y.-E. Tiao, “Patent rights protection and foreign direct investment in Asian countrie

43、s,” Econ. Model., vol. 44, pp. 1–6, Jan. 2015.</p><p>　　[10]T. O. Awokuse and H. Yin, “Intellectual property rights protection and the surge in FDI in China,” J. Comp. Econ., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 217–224, Jun

44、. 2010.</p><p>　　[11]J. Du, Y. Lu, and Z. Tao, “Economic institutions and FDI location choice: Evidence from US multinationals in China,” J. Comp. Econ., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 412–429, Sep. 2008.</p>&l

45、t;p>　　[12]M. Grimaldi, L. Cricelli, M. Di Giovanni, and F. Rogo, “The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.

46、</p><p>　　[13]T. Fischer and J. Leidinger, “Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions,” Res. Policy, no. 0.</p><p>　　[

47、14]D. Harhoff, K. Hoisl, B. Reichl, and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, “Patent validation at the country level—The role of fees and translation costs,” Res. Policy, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1423–1437, Nov. 2009.</p&g

48、t;<p>　　[15]D. H. McQueen, “Growth of software related patents in different countries,” Technovation, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 657–671, Jun. 2005.</p><p>　　[16]P. Athukorala and A. Kohpaiboon, “Globalizati

49、on of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises,” Res. Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1335–1347, Dec. 2010.</p><p>　　[17]M.-H. Huang, H.-R. Dong, and D.-Z. Chen, “Globalization of collaborative creativity

50、through cross-border patent activities,” J. Informetr., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 226–236, Apr. 2012.</p><p>　　[18]D. Yang, “The development of intellectual property in China,” World Pat. Inf., vol. 25, no. 2, pp.

51、131–142, Jun. 2003.</p><p>　　[19]T. O. Awokuse and H. Yin, “Does Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Protection Induce More Bilateral Trade? Evidence from China’s Imports,” World Dev., vol. 38, no. 8, pp.

52、1094–1104, Aug. 2010.</p><p>　　[20]A. Bohnstedt, C. Schwarz, and J. Suedekum, “Globalization and strategic research investments,” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 13–23, Feb. 2012.</p><p>　　[21]

53、E. L.-C. Lai and I. K. M. Yan, “Would global patent protection be too weak without international coordination?,” J. Int. Econ., vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 42–54, Jan. 2013.</p><p>　　[22]B. Seyoum, “US trade prefere

54、nces and export performance of developing countries: Evidence from the generalized system of preferences,” Int. Bus. Rev., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 68–83, Feb. 2006.</p><p>　　[23]C.-W. Hsu, Y.-C. Lien, and H. Che

55、n, “R&D internationalization and innovation performance,” Int. Bus. Rev.</p><p>　　[24]A. Gerybadze and G. Reger, “Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational

56、 corporations,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 2–3, pp. 251–274, Mar. 1999.</p><p>　　[25]S. Kurokawa, S. Iwata, and E. B. Roberts, “Global R&D activities of Japanese MNCs in the US: A triangulation approach,”

57、 Res. Policy, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3–36, Feb. 2007.</p><p>　　[26]X. Diao, T. Roe, and E. Yeldan, “Strategic policies and growth: an applied model of R&D-driven endogenous growth,” J. Dev. Econ., vol. 60,

58、no. 2, pp. 343–380, Dec. 1999.</p><p>　　[27]D. Liu and C. M. Meissner, “Market Potential and the Rise of US Productivity Leadership,” J. Int. Econ.</p><p>　　[28]R. Jagannathan, M. Kapoor, and E.

59、 Schaumburg, “Causes of the great recession of 2007–2009: The financial crisis was the symptom not the disease!,” J. Financ. Intermediation, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 4–29, Jan. 2013.</p><p>　　[29]S. Yamamoto, “Tr

60、ansmission of US financial and trade shocks to Asian economies: Implications for spillover of the 2007–2009 US financial crisis,</p><p>　　探究研發(fā)投入以及進出口業(yè)績對專利價值的影響</p><p>　　摘要—---在無形資產(chǎn)和國際化上起著至關(guān)重要作用的

61、全球化知識經(jīng)濟中，專利評估一直是一個重要研究課題。 本次研究的目的是為了了解這兩個因素：1）無形資產(chǎn)：專利活動和研發(fā)投入; 2）有形商品：國際進出口、影響專利價值。 更具體地說，一些專利信息，例如反映無形資產(chǎn)的專利數(shù)量、發(fā)明人數(shù)量、收到的專利引用數(shù)量、專利使用費用（來自美國專利商標局和世界銀行數(shù)據(jù)），以及反映全球化有形商品的美國進出口數(shù)據(jù)（來自UN-COMTRADE）被用來測試所選數(shù)據(jù)在估計專利價值時是否具有說服力。 結(jié)果表明其相關(guān)性為

62、正，說服力得以確定。</p><p><b>　　一、引言</b></p><p>　　近年來，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)逐漸成為一個流行的問題。在一些實證研究中，已經(jīng)證明了在國際市場上專利與經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)之間存在密切的聯(lián)系和相關(guān)性[1] - [4]。例如，根據(jù)本文選定的那些國家的時間縱向分析，證明了專利可以解釋進出口數(shù)據(jù)流。更具體地說，本文通過出口和進口業(yè)績是否可以用作宏觀經(jīng)濟業(yè)績和專利活

63、動的橋梁來提出這個問題。因此，本研究的總體目標是通過觀察本文選擇的國家來顯示進口或出口和研發(fā)（研發(fā)）投資的不同表現(xiàn)在評估專利價值方面是否具有說服力。此外，可以預(yù)計到專利 - 作為研究和開發(fā)過程的產(chǎn)出指標 - 與各國的進出口業(yè)績密切相關(guān)。</p><p>　　近年來有許多專利訴訟案件，因為我們都處于全球化的知識經(jīng)濟時代。 例如，在不同國家進行跨境貿(mào)易的公司經(jīng)常為了保護產(chǎn)品而互相侵犯專利權(quán)。 根據(jù)對訴訟專利的研究[5

64、]，認為專利比非訴訟專利更有價值，因此本文將訴訟專利作為數(shù)據(jù)檢索的主要條件。</p><p><b>　　二、文獻綜述</b></p><p>　　A.宏觀經(jīng)濟與專利之間的互動</p><p>　　隨著貿(mào)易全球化趨勢的不斷增強，不同國家根據(jù)其內(nèi)部因素可能會對FDI（境外直接投資）產(chǎn)生重大影響[9] [10] [11]。 國際上的專利行動可能會對

65、國際貿(mào)易和出口投資產(chǎn)生深遠的積極影響[3]。 一些研究表明，宏觀經(jīng)濟專利統(tǒng)計可能會糾正來自全球知識經(jīng)濟產(chǎn)生的影響[4]。 在這項研究中，我們主要采用了引用的研究方法，去發(fā)現(xiàn)了宏觀經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)與專利價值之間的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　B專利作為主要分析基礎(chǔ)元素</p><p>　　大量的研究表明專利是有價值的指標[12] - [15]。 近年來，隨著全球化的發(fā)展，越來越多的跨國專利訴訟問題出現(xiàn)

66、了。 另外，訴訟專利是更具價值的專利這一觀點已提出[5]。 在這個話題中，參考文獻[5]也調(diào)查訴訟專利，并討論訴訟專利是否有價值。</p><p>　　C全球化研發(fā)活動中的專利表現(xiàn)</p><p>　　在全球知識經(jīng)濟中，全球化研發(fā)行為經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在各國 [16]。 一些研究表明，專利活動是研發(fā)活動中的直接產(chǎn)品[17]，并且擁有標準的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度可以為跨國公司提供適當?shù)沫h(huán)境[18] [19]。

67、在全球化的環(huán)境中，技術(shù)越高，競爭優(yōu)勢越好[20]。 在這項研究中，我們還利用研發(fā)表現(xiàn)來展示跨境貿(mào)易與訴訟專利之間的作用[18]。</p><p><b>　　三，研究方法</b></p><p>　　在本節(jié)中，主要說道美國訴訟專利的情況[5]，美國被選定為目標國[21]，[22]來表述如何探索這三個因素的影響：1）研發(fā)投入 [17]，[23] - [26]，2）進口和

68、出口業(yè)績，3）專利指標，考慮這些專利價值的因素是有以下這些原因：首先，美國是世界主要市場之一。 其次，USPTO在世界各地收集專利的數(shù)量很多，在各個領(lǐng)域擁有高技術(shù)覆蓋率。 第三，也是最重要的因素是訴訟專利在以前的研究中已被證明是比非訴訟專利更有價值的專利類型[5]。</p><p>　　本次研究首先下載了美國專利商標局1976年至2013年發(fā)布的的所有實用新型專利（共466 8855份實用專利），然后選擇每年引用

69、美國訴訟專利的前20個國家。本研究之所以選擇這20個國家，是因為本研究想要了解主要與美國相關(guān)的全球化知識經(jīng)濟，從結(jié)果來看，這些國家是（韓國，瑞典，以色列，意大利，瑞典，芬蘭，澳大利亞，新加坡，丹麥，香港特別行政區(qū)，愛爾蘭，臺灣，中國，荷蘭，瑞士，法國，英國，加拿大，德國，日本，美國），縱軸為訴訟專利數(shù)，橫軸是國家。通過觀察，訴訟專利的數(shù)量顯示，僅美國有1萬余件專利來源于美國訴訟專利，美國訴訟專利引用的前5個國家分別是（美國，日本，德國，

70、加拿大和英國）。此外，美國是最可能引用美國訴訟專利的國家。</p><p>　　為了探討研發(fā)表現(xiàn)和跨境貿(mào)易對專利價值的影響，本文還采用相關(guān)系數(shù)和</p><p>　　多元回歸分析等統(tǒng)計方法來展示本研究所選國家之間的關(guān)系。</p><p><b>　　四、結(jié)果與探討</b></p><p>　　這項研究比較了圖中20個國家

71、中的一些國家，以探究無形資產(chǎn)與有形資產(chǎn)之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。 首先，本研究使用UN-COMTRADE數(shù)據(jù)庫來選擇美國與全球（全球所有貿(mào)易伙伴）跨境貿(mào)易的數(shù)據(jù)，這說明美國自1996年以來的總貿(mào)易量一直呈上升趨勢，但它突然間 在2009年下降，這可能歸因于世界各地的經(jīng)濟衰退。[28] [29]</p><p>　　很顯然，美國的貿(mào)易逆差很高，這意味著美國經(jīng)濟主要依靠進口，而且多</p><p>　　年來

72、差距越來越大，美國需要更多的其他國家的商品來滿足其需求。</p><p>　　此外，為了了解研發(fā)表現(xiàn)是否受到間接影響，我們需要探討專利是否有價</p><p>　　值，本文使用世界銀行數(shù)據(jù)庫提供的信息（包括一系列研發(fā)和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)費用[30]）</p><p>　　，那么本文選擇2005年至2011年間引用美國訴訟專利的排名前七位的國家。</p><

73、p>　　我們將通過回顧實證研究結(jié)果來開啟我們的討論，然后轉(zhuǎn)向一般的理論問</p><p>　　題。由于我們近年來面臨著貿(mào)易環(huán)境的全球化，這些結(jié)果可以通過考慮全球化的</p><p>　　知識經(jīng)濟來進行解釋。 因此，我們的分析旨在解釋無形資產(chǎn)（訴訟專利價值）</p><p>　　與有形資產(chǎn)（國際貿(mào)易與研發(fā)投資）之間的影響。</p><p>

74、;　　我們的研究雖然具有實驗性，但表明經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)的全球化對使用審查專利價值</p><p>　　有兩個潛在的重要影響，分別是國際貿(mào)易和研發(fā)投入。 本研究的結(jié)果部分支持了</p><p>　　國際貿(mào)易和研發(fā)表現(xiàn)在探索專利價值方面具有說服力的觀點。 在承認了全球化表</p><p>　　現(xiàn)觀測數(shù)據(jù)的局限性之后，我們?nèi)匀豢梢源_認某些全球化表現(xiàn)似乎具有一組特定</p&g

75、t;<p>　　的結(jié)構(gòu)特征。 此外，專利價值可能可以評估未來其他的有形資產(chǎn)。</p><p>　　REFERENCES</p><p>　　[1]R. Frietsch, P. Neuhäusler, T. Jung, and B. Van Looy, “Patent indicators for macroeconomic growth—the value of

76、patents estimated by export volume,” Technovation, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 546–558, Sep. 2014.</p><p>　　[2]T. Ushijima, “Patent rights protection and Japanese foreign direct investment,” Res. Policy, vol. 42, no

77、. 3, pp. 738–748, Apr. 2013.</p><p>　　[3]C.-H. Yang and N.-F. Kuo, “Trade-related influences, foreign intellectual property rights and outbound international patenting,” Res. Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 446–

78、459, Apr. 2008.</p><p>　　[4]H. Grupp and U. Schmoch, “Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: new legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 4, p

79、p. 377–396, Apr. 1999.</p><p>　　[5]H.-N. Su, C. M.-L. Chen, and P.-C. Lee, “Patent litigation precaution method: analyzing characteristics of US litigated and non-litigated patents from 1976 to 2010,” Scient

80、ometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 181–195,Apr. 2012.</p><p>　　[6]H. Choe, D. H. Lee, I. W. Seo, and H. D. Kim, “Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: Country, institution

81、, and technology field,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 26, pp. 492–505, Oct. 2013.</p><p>　　[7]V. Dequiedt and B. Versaevel, “Patent pools and dynamic R&D incentives,” Int. Rev. Law Econ., vol. 36, p

82、p. 59–69, Oct. 2013.</p><p>　　[8]A. G. Hu, “The Regionalization of Knowledge Flows in East Asia: Evidence from Patent Citations Data,” World Dev., vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1465–1477, Sep. 2009.</p><p&g

83、t;　　[9]J. Hsu and Y.-E. Tiao, “Patent rights protection and foreign direct investment in Asian countries,” Econ. Model., vol. 44, pp. 1–6, Jan. 2015.</p><p>　　[10]T. O. Awokuse and H. Yin, “Intellectual prop

84、erty rights protection and the surge in FDI in China,” J. Comp. Econ., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 217–224, Jun. 2010.</p><p>　　[11]J. Du, Y. Lu, and Z. Tao, “Economic institutions and FDI location choice: Evidence

85、from US multinationals in China,” J. Comp. Econ., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 412–429, Sep. 2008.</p><p>　　[12]M. Grimaldi, L. Cricelli, M. Di Giovanni, and F. Rogo, “The patent portfolio value analysis: A new frame

86、work to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.</p><p>　　[13]T. Fischer and J. Leidinger, “Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent

87、value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions,” Res. Policy, no. 0.</p><p>　　[14]D. Harhoff, K. Hoisl, B. Reichl, and B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, “Patent validation at the country level—

88、The role of fees and translation costs,” Res. Policy, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1423–1437, Nov. 2009.</p><p>　　[15]D. H. McQueen, “Growth of software related patents in different countries,” Technovation, vol. 25,

89、 no. 6, pp. 657–671, Jun. 2005.</p><p>　　[16]P. Athukorala and A. Kohpaiboon, “Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises,” Res. Policy, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1335–1347, Dec. 2010.</p&g

90、t;<p>　　[17]M.-H. Huang, H.-R. Dong, and D.-Z. Chen, “Globalization of collaborative creativity through cross-border patent activities,” J. Informetr., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 226–236, Apr. 2012.</p><p>　　

91、[18]D. Yang, “The development of intellectual property in China,” World Pat. Inf., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 131–142, Jun. 2003.</p><p>　　[19]T. O. Awokuse and H. Yin, “Does Stronger Intellectual Property Rights P

92、rotection Induce More Bilateral Trade? Evidence from China’s Imports,” World Dev., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1094–1104, Aug. 2010.</p><p>　　[20]A. Bohnstedt, C. Schwarz, and J. Suedekum, “Globalization and strateg

93、ic research investments,” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 13–23, Feb. 2012.</p><p>　　[21]E. L.-C. Lai and I. K. M. Yan, “Would global patent protection be too weak without international coordination?,” J. I

94、nt. Econ., vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 42–54, Jan. 2013.</p><p>　　[22]B. Seyoum, “US trade preferences and export performance of developing countries: Evidence from the generalized system of preferences,” Int. Bus.

95、Rev., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 68–83, Feb. 2006.</p><p>　　[23]C.-W. Hsu, Y.-C. Lien, and H. Chen, “R&D internationalization and innovation performance,” Int. Bus. Rev.</p><p>　　[24]A. Gerybadze a

96、nd G. Reger, “Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations,” Res. Policy, vol. 28, no. 2–3, pp. 251–274, Mar. 1999.</p><p>　　[25]S. Kurokawa, S. Iwat

97、a, and E. B. Roberts, “Global R&D activities of Japanese MNCs in the US: A triangulation approach,” Res. Policy, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3–36, Feb. 2007.</p><p>　　[26]X. Diao, T. Roe, and E. Yeldan, “Strateg

98、ic policies and growth: an applied model of R&D-driven endogenous growth,” J. Dev. Econ., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 343–380, Dec. 1999.</p><p>　　[27]D. Liu and C. M. Meissner, “Market Potential and the Rise of

99、 US Productivity Leadership,” J. Int. Econ.</p><p>　　[28]R. Jagannathan, M. Kapoor, and E. Schaumburg, “Causes of the great recession of 2007–2009: The financial crisis was the symptom not the disease!,” J.

100、Financ. Intermediation, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 4–29, Jan. 2013.</p><p>　　[29]S. Yamamoto, “Transmission of US financial and trade shocks to Asian economies: Implications for spillover of the 2007–2009 US financ