Reviews on Taiwan Constitutional Court's Judgment no. 13 of 2022
Reviews on Taiwan Constitutional Court's Judgment no. 13 of 2022
2022/11/24
I.Introduction
In 2012, the Taiwan Human Rights Promotion Association and other civil groups believe that the National Health Insurance Administration released the national health insurance database and other health insurance data for scholars to do research without consent, which may be unconstitutional and petitioned for constitutional interpretation.
Taiwan Human Rights Promotion Association believes that the state collects, processes, and utilizes personal data on a large scale with the "Personal Data Protection Law", but does not set up another law of conduct to control the exercise of state power, which has violated the principle of legal retention; the data is provided to third-party academic research for use, and the parties involved later Excessive restrictions on the right to withdraw go against the principle of proportionality.
The claimant criticized that depriving citizens of their prior consent and post-control rights to medical data is like forcing all citizens to unconditionally contribute data for use outside the purpose before they can use health insurance. The personal data law was originally established to "avoid the infringement of personality rights and promote the rational use of data", but in the insufficient and outdated design of the regulations, it cannot protect the privacy of citizens' information from infringement, and it is easy to open the door to the use of data for other purposes.
In addition, even if the health insurance data is de-identified, it is still "individual data" that can distinguish individuals, not "overall data." Health insurance data can be connected with other data of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such as: physical and mental disability files, sexual assault notification files, etc., and you can also apply for bringing in external data or connecting with other agency data. Although Taiwan prohibits the export of original data, the risk of re-identification may also increase as the number of sources and types of data concatenated increases, as well as unspecified research purposes.
The constitutional court of Taiwan has made its judgment on the constitutionality of the personal data usage of National Health Insurance research database. The judgment, released on August 12, 2022, states that Article 6 of Personal Data Protection Act(PDPA), which asks “data pertaining to a natural person's medical records, healthcare, genetics, sex life, physical examination and criminal records shall not be collected, processed or used unless where it is necessary for statistics gathering or academic research by a government agency or an academic institution for the purpose of healthcare, public health, or crime prevention, provided that such data, as processed by the data provider or as disclosed by the data collector, may not lead to the identification of a specific data subject” does not violate Intelligible principle and Principle of proportionality. Therefore, PDPA does not invade people’s right to privacy and remains constitutional.
However, the judgment finds the absence of independent supervisory authority responsible for ensuring Taiwan institutions and bodies comply with data protection law, can be unconstitutional, putting personal data protection system on the borderline to failure. Accordingly, laws and regulations must be amended to protect people’s information privacy guaranteed by Article 22 of Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
In addition, the judgment also states it is unconstitutional that Articles 79 and 80 of National Health Insurance Law and other relevant laws lack clear provisions in terms of store, process, external transmission of Personal health insurance data held by Central Health Insurance Administration of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
Finally, the Central Health Insurance Administration of the Ministry of Health and Welfare provides public agencies or academic research institutions with personal health insurance data for use outside the original purpose of collection. According to the overall observation of the relevant regulations, there is no relevant provision that the parties can request to “opt-out”; within this scope, it violates the intention of Article 22 of the Constitution to protect people's right to information privacy.
II.Independent supervisory authority
According to Article 3 of Central Regulations and Standards Act, government agencies can be divided into independent agencies that can independently exercise their powers and operate autonomously, and non- independent agencies that must obey orders from their superiors. In Taiwan, the so-called "dedicated agency"(專責機關) does not fall into any type of agency defined by the Central Regulations and Standards Act. Dedicated agency should be interpreted as an agency that is responsible for a specific business and here is no other agency to share the business.
The European Union requires member states to set up independent regulatory agencies (refer to Articles 51 and 52 of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)). In General Data Protection Regulation and the adequacy reference guidelines, the specific requirements for personal data supervisory agencies are as follows: the country concerned should have one or more independent supervisory agencies; they should perform their duties completely independently and cannot seek or accept instructions; the supervisory agencies should have necessary and practicable powers, including the power of investigation; it should be considered whether its staff and budget can effectively assist its implementation. Therefore, in order to pass the EU's adequacy certification and implement the protection of people's privacy and information autonomy, major countries have set up independent supervisory agencies for personal data protection based on the GDPR standards.
According to this research, most countries have 5 to 10 commissioners that independently exercise their powers to supervise data exchange and personal data protection. In order to implement the powers and avoid unnecessary conflicts of interests among personnel, most of the commissioners are full-time professionals. Article 3 of Basic Code Governing Central Administrative Agencies Organizations defines independent agency as "A commission-type collegial organization that exercises its powers and functions independently without the supervision of other agencies, and operates autonomously unless otherwise stipulated." It is similar to Japan, South Korea, and the United States.
III.Right to Opt-out
The judgment pointed out that the parties still have the right to control afterwards the personal information that is allowed to be collected, processed and used without the consent of the parties or that meets certain requirements. Although Article 11 of PDPA provides for certain parties to exercise the right to control afterwards, it does not cover all situations in which personal data is used, such as: legally collecting, processing or using correct personal data, and its specific purpose has not disappeared, In the event that the time limit has not yet expired, so the information autonomy of the party cannot be fully protected, the subject, cause, procedure, effect, etc. of the request for suspension of use should be clearly stipulated in the revised law, and exceptions are not allowed.
The United Kingdom is of great reference. In 2017, after the British Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) determined that the data sharing agreement between Google's artificial intelligence DeepMind and the British National Health Service (NHS) violated the British data protection law, the British Department of Health and Social Care proposed National data opt-out Directive in May, 2018. British health and social care-related institutions may refer to the National Data Opt-out Operational Policy Guidance Document published by the National Health Service in October to plan the mechanism for exercising patient's opt-out right. The guidance document mainly explains the overall policy on the exercise of the right to opt-out, as well as the specific implementation of suggested practices, such as opt-out response measures, methods of exercising the opt-out right, etc.
National Data Opt-out Operational Policy Guidance Document also includes exceptions and restrictions on the right to opt-out. The Document stipulates that exceptions may limit the right to Opt-out, including: the sharing of patient data, if it is based on the consent of the parties (consent), the prevention and control of infectious diseases (communicable disease and risks to public health), major public interests (overriding) Public interest), statutory obligations, or cooperation with judicial investigations (information required by law or court order), health and social care-related institutions may exceptionally restrict the exercise of the patient's right to withdraw.
What needs to be distinguished from the situation in Taiwan is that when the UK first collected public information and entered it into the NHS database, there was already a law authorizing the NHS to search and use personal information of the public. The right to choose to enter or not for the first time; and after their personal data has entered the NHS database, the law gives the public the right to opt-out. Therefore, the UK has given the public two opportunities to choose through the enactment of special laws to protect public's right to information autonomy.
At present, the secondary use of data in the health insurance database does not have a complete legal basis in Taiwan. At the beginning, the data was automatically sent in without asking for everyone’s consent, and there was no way to withdraw when it was used for other purposes, therefore it was s unconstitutional. Hence, in addition to thinking about what kind of provisions to add to the PDPA as a condition for "exception and non-request for cessation of use", whether to formulate a special law on secondary use is also worthy of consideration by the Taiwan government.
IV.De-identification
According to the relevant regulations of PDPA, there is no definition of "de-identification", resulting in a conceptual gap in the connotation. In other words, what angle or standard should be used to judge that the processed data has reached the point where it is impossible to identify a specific person. In judicial practice, it has been pointed out that for "data recipients", if the data has been de-identified, the data will no longer be regulated by PDPA due to the loss of personal attributes, and it is even further believed that de-identification is not necessary.
However, the Judgment No. 13 of Constitutional Court, pointed out that through de-identification measures, ordinary people cannot identify a specific party without using additional information, which can be regarded as personal data of de-identification data. Therefore, the judge did not give an objective standard for de-identification, but believed that the purpose of data utilization and the risk of re-identification should be measured on a case-by-case basis, and a strict review of the constitutional principle of proportionality should be carried out. So far, it should be considered that the interpretation of the de-identification standard has been roughly finalized.
V.Conclusions
The judge first explained that if personal information is processed, the type and nature of the data can still be objectively restored to indirectly identify the parties, no matter how simple or difficult the restoration process is, if the data is restored in a specific way, the parties can still be identified. personal information. Therefore, the independent control rights of the parties to such data are still protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.
Conversely, when the processed data objectively has no possibility to restore the identification of individuals, it loses the essence of personal data, and the parties concerned are no longer protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.
Based on this, the judge declared that according to Article 6, Item 1, Proviso, Clause 4 of the PDPA, the health insurance database has been processed so that the specific party cannot be identified, and it is used by public agencies or academic research institutions for medical and health purposes. Doing necessary statistical or academic research complies with the principles of legal clarity and proportionality, and does not violate the Constitution.
However, the judge believes that the current personal data law or other relevant regulations still lack an independent supervision mechanism for personal data protection, and the protection of personal information privacy is insufficient. In addition, important matters such as personal health insurance data can be stored, processed, and transmitted externally by the National Health Insurance Administration in a database; the subject, purpose, requirements, scope, and method of providing external use; and organizational and procedural supervision and protection mechanisms, etc. Articles 79 and 80 of the Health Insurance Law and other relevant laws lack clear provisions, so they are determined to be unconstitutional.
In the end, the judge found that the relevant laws and regulations lacked the provisions that the parties can request to stop using the data, whether it is the right of the parties to request to stop, or the procedures to be followed to stop the use, there is no relevant clear text, obviously the protection of information privacy is insufficient. Therefore, regarding unconstitutional issues, the Constitutional Court ordered the relevant agencies to amend the Health Insurance Law and related laws within 3 years, or formulate specific laws.
Introduction to the “Public Procurement for Startups” mechanism I.Backgrounds According to the EU’s statistics, government procurement budget accounted for over 14% of GDP. And, according to the media report, the total amount of government procurement in Taiwan in 2017 accounted for nearly 8%. Therefore, the government’s procurement power has gradually become a policy tool for the government to promote the development of innovative products and services. In 2017, the Executive Yuan of the R.O.C.（Taiwan）announced a government procurement policy named “Government as Good Partners with Startups （政府成為新創好夥伴）”[1] to encourage government agencies and State-owned Enterprises to procure and adopt innovative goods or services provided by startups. This policy was subsequently implemented through an action plan named “Public Procurement for Startups”（新創採購）[2] by the Small and Medium Enterprise Administration（SMEA）.The action plan mainly includes two important parts：One created the procurement process for startups to enter the government contracts market through inter-entities contracts. The other accelerated the collaboration of the government agencies and startups through empirical demonstration. II.Facilitating the procurement process for startups to enter the government market In order to help startups enter the government contracts market in a more efficient way, the SMEA conducts the procurement of inter-entity supply contracts with suppliers, especially startups, for the supply of innovative goods or services. An inter-entity supply contract[3] is a special contractual framework, under which the contracting entity on behalf of two or more other contracting parties signs a contract with suppliers and formulates the specifics and price of products or services provided through the public procurement process. Through the process of calling for tenders, price competition and so on, winning tenderers will be selected and listed on the Government E-Procurement System. This framework allows those contracting entities obtain orders and acquire products or services which they need in a more efficient way so it increases government agencies’ willingness to procure and use innovative products and services. From 2018, the SMEA started to undertake the survey of innovative products and services that government agencies usually needed and conducted the procurement of inter-entity supply contracts for two rounds every year. As a result, the SMEA plays an important role to bridge the demand and supply sides for innovative products or services by means of implementing the forth-mentioned survey and procurement process. Moreover, in order to explore more innovative products and services with high quality and suitable for government agencies and public institutions, the SMEA actively networked with various stakeholders, including incubators, accelerators, startups mentoring programs sponsored by private and public sectors and so on. Initially the items to be procured were categorized into four themes which were named the Smart Innovations, the Smart Eco, the Smart Healthcare, and the Smart Security. Later, in order to show the diversity of the innovation of startups which response well to various social issues, from 2019, the SMEA introduced two new theme solicitations titled the Smart Education and the Smart Agriculture to the inter-entities contracts. Those items included the power management systems, the AI automated recognition and image warning system, the chatbot for public service, unmanned flying vehicles, aerial photography services and so on. Take the popular AI image warning system as an example, the system is used by police officers to make instant evidence searching and image recording. Other government agencies apply the innovative system to the investigation of illegal logging and school safety surveillance. Moreover, the SMEA has also offered subsidy for local governments tobuy those items provided by startups. That is the coordinated supporting measure which allows startups the equal playing field to compete with large companies. The Subsidy scheme is based on the Guideline for Subsidies on Procurement of Innovative Products and Services[3] (approved by the Executive Yuan on March 29, 2018 and revised on Feb. 20, 2021). In the Guideline, “innovative products and services” refer to the products, technologies, labor, service flows or items and services rendered with creative activities through deploying scientific or technical means and a certain degree of innovations by startups with less than five years in operation. Such innovative products and services are displayed for the inter-entity supply contractual framework administered by the SMEA for government procurement. III.Accelerating the collaboration of the government agencies and startups through empirical demonstration To assist startups to prove their concepts or services, and become more familiar with the governemnrt’s needs, the SMEA also created a mechanism called the “Solving Governmental Problems by Star-up Innovation”（政府出題˙新創解題）. It plans to collect government agencies’ needs, and then solicit innovative proposals from startups. After their proposals are accepted, startups will be given a grant up to one million NT dollars to conduct empirical studies on solution with government agencies for about half a year. Take the cooperation between the “Taoyuan Long Term Care Institute for Older People and the Biotech Startup” for example, a care system with sanitary aids was introduced to provide automatic detection, cleanup and dry services for the patients’discharges, thus saving 95% of cleaning time for caregivers. In the past, caregivers usually spent 4 hours on the average in inspecting old patients, cleaning and replacing their bedsheets as their busy daily routines. Inadequate caregivers makes it difficult to maintain the care quality. If the problem was not addressed immediately, it would make the life of old patients more difficult. IV.Achievements to date Since the promotion of the products and services of the startups and the launch of the “Public Procurement for Startups” program in 2018, 68 startups, with the SMEA’s assistance, have entered the government procurement contracts market, and more than 100 government agencies have adopted the innovative resolutions. With the encouragement for them in adopting and utilizing the fruits of the startups, it has generated more than NT$150 million in cooperative business opportunities. V.Conclusions While more and more startups are obtaining business opportunities from the favorable procurement process, constant innovation remains the key to success. As such, the SMEA has regularly visited the government agencies-buyers to obtain feedbacks from startups so as to adjust and optimize the innovative products or services. The SMEA has also regularly renewed the specifics and items of the procurement list every year to keep introducing and supplying high-quality products or services to the government agencies. [1] Policy for investment environment optimization for Startups（2017）,available athttps://www.ndc.gov.tw/nc_27_28382.（last visited on July 30, 2021 ) [2] https://www.spp.org.tw/spp/（last visited on July 30, 2021 ) [3] Article 93 of Government Procurement Act：I An entity may execute an inter-entity supply contract with a supplier for the supply of property or services that are commonly needed by entities. II The regulations for a procurement of an inter-entity supply contract, the matters specified in the tender documentation and contract, applicable entities, and the related matters shall be prescribed by the responsible entity. [4] https://law.moea.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000555（last visited on July 30, 2021）
The Research on ownership of cell therapy productsThe Research on ownership of cell therapy products 1. Issues concerning ownership of cell therapy products Regarding the issue of ownership interests, American Medical Association(AMA)has pointed out in 2016 that using human tissues to develop commercially available products raises question about who holds property rights in human biological materials[1]. In United States, there have been several disputes concern the issue of the whether the donor of the cell therapy can claim ownership of the product, including Moore v. Regents of University of California(1990)[2], Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute(2003)[3], and Washington University v. Catalona(2007)[4]. The courts tend to hold that since cells and tissues were donated voluntarily, the donors had already lost their property rights of their cells and tissues at the time of the donation. In Moore case, even if the researchers used Moore’s cells to obtain commercial benefits in an involuntary situation, the court still held that the property rights of removed cells were not suitable to be claimed by their donor, so as to avoid the burden for researcher to clarify whether the use of cells violates the wishes of the donors and therefore decrease the legal risk for R&D activities. United Kingdom Medical Research Council(MRC)also noted in 2019 that the donated human material is usually described as ‘gifts’, and donors of samples are not usually regarded as having ownership or property rights in these[5]. Accordingly, both USA and UK tends to believe that it is not suitable for cell donors to claim ownership. 2. The ownership of cell therapy products in the lens of Taiwan’s Civil Code In Taiwan, Article 766 of Civil Code stipulated: “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Accordingly, many scholars believe that the ownership of separated body parts of the human body belong to the person whom the parts were separated from. Therefore, it should be considered that the ownership of the cells obtained from the donor still belongs to the donor. In addition, since it is stipulated in Article 406 of Civil Code that “A gift is a contract whereby the parties agree that one of the parties delivers his property gratuitously to another party and the latter agrees to accept it.”, if the act of donation can be considered as a gift relationship, then the ownership of the cells has been delivered from donor to other party who accept it accordingly. However, in the different versions of Regenerative Medicine Biologics Regulation (draft) proposed by Taiwan legislators, some of which replace the term “donor” with “provider”. Therefore, for cell providers, instead of cell donors, after providing cells, whether they can claim ownership of cell therapy product still needs further discussion. According to Article 69 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “Natural profits are products of the earth, animals, and other products which are produced from another thing without diminution of its substance.” In addition, Article 766 of the Civil Code stipulated that “Unless otherwise provided by the Act, the component parts of a thing and the natural profits thereof, belong, even after their separation from the thing, to the owner of the thing.” Thus, many scholars believe that when the product is organic, original substance and the natural profits thereof are all belong to the owner of the original substance. For example, when proteins are produced from isolated cells, the proteins can be deemed as natural profits and the ownership of proteins and isolated cells all belong to the owner of the cells[6]. Nevertheless, according to Article 814 of the Civil Code, it is stipulated that “When a person has contributed work to a personal property belonging to another, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the owner of the material thereof. However, if the value of the contributing work obviously exceeds the value of the material, the ownership of the personal property upon which the work is done belongs to the contributing person.” Thus, scholar believes that since regenerative medical technology, which induces cell differentiation, involves quite complex biotechnology technology, and should be deemed as contributing work. Therefore, the ownership of cell products after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person[7]. Thus, if the provider provides the cells to the researcher, after complex biotechnology contributing work, the original ownership of the cells should be deemed to have been eliminated, and there is no basis for providers to claim ownership. However, since the development of cell therapy products involves a series of R&D activities, it still need to be clarified that who is entitled to the ownership of the final cell therapy products. According to Taiwan’s Civil Code, the ownership of product after contributing work should belongs to the contributing person. However, when there are numerous contributing persons, which person should the ownership belong to, might be determined on a case-by-case basis. 3. Conclusion The biggest difference between cell therapy products and all other small molecule drugs or biologics is that original cell materials are provided by donors or providers, and the whole development process involves numerous contributing persons. Hence, ownership disputes are prone to arise. In addition to the above-discussed disputes, United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research(UKCCCR)also noted that there is a long list of people and organizations who might lay claim to the ownership of specimens and their derivatives, including the donor and relatives, the surgeon and pathologist, the hospital authority where the sample was taken, the scientists engaged in the research, the institution where the research work was carried out, the funding organization supporting the research and any collaborating commercial company. Thus, the ultimate control of subsequent ownership and patent rights will need to be negotiated[8]. Since the same issues might also occur in Taiwan, while developing cell therapy products, carefully clarifying the ownership between stakeholders is necessary for avoiding possible dispute. [1]American Medical Association [AMA], Commercial Use of Human Biological Materials, Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.3.9, Nov. 14, 2016, https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/commercial-use-human-biological-materials (last visited Jan. 3, 2021). [2]Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) [3]Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, 264 F. Suppl. 2d, 1064 (SD Fl. 2003) [4]Washington University v. Catalona, 490 F 3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) [5]Medical Research Council [MRC], Human Tissue and Biological Samples for Use in Research: Operational and Ethical Guidelines, 2019, https://mrc.ukri.org/publications/browse/human-tissue-and-biological-samples-for-use-in-research/ (last visited Jan. 3, 2021). [6]Wen-Hui Chiu, The legal entitlement of human body, tissue and derivatives in civil law, Angle Publishing, 2016, at 327. [7]id, at 341. [8]Okano, M., Takebayashi, S., Okumura, K., Li, E., Gaudray, P., Carle, G. F., & Bliek, J. UKCCCR guidelines for the use of cell lines in cancer research.Cytogenetic and Genome Research,86(3-4), 1999, https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2363383&blobtype=pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2021).
A Discussion on Introducing the Concept of “Government Procurement Innovation” and Suggestions for LegislationI. Introduction In Finland, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation, or TEKES1, has proposed the Innovations in Public Procurement, or IPP2, which can be seen as the origin of innovative government procurement solutions all over the world. As such, this paper is an attempt to explore the possibility of introducing improvements to government innovation, within procurement in the Republic of China (ROC). The IPP scheme of Finland may be used as an observational tool for the analysis of innovative ideas within the international community, for comparison with government procurement, the legislation of the scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement currently effective in ROC. The findings could serve as a reference for related government agencies. The concept of Public Procurement of Innovation, or PPI, in the EU could serve as the benchmark for the ROC on studying the feasibility of introducing this system. In this paper an analysis of the legal system of the ROC will be conducted in the first place to clarify the objective of introducing the concept of PPI into existing legal procedures. This is particularly the case, since that subsidy and procurement do indeed form the two-pronged policy that is currently in effect. First of all, is PPI essential to the systems that could be or could only be enforced under “government procurement”? Secondly, could PPI be introduced into relevant procedures, as explained in preceding sections? Are there any provisions of law that could be amended for such a purpose? And in what direction should we focus our attention? The concept of PPI is a solution under rapid social change, certain products or services are scarce or absent for coping with the needs of rapid social change, to the extent that an innovative solution is necessary. In addition, government procurement is the tool for encouraging the proposal of innovative solutions to mold a friendly market through the participation of the users. (But we have to be cautious. This need is different from green procurement, which requires government procurement to create a market of pre-commercialized purchase 3.) The procurement and innovation subsidy by TEKES of Finland takes the public sector as the recipients of subsidy so that the recipients of subsidy could introduce the mode of dialogue between the users and the suppliers in the course of procurement. At the planning stage of the IPP in Finland, government agencies could receive a subsidy ranging from 25% to 75% of expenditure (including the provision of technology dialogue with different targets, long-term development analysis, the design of the specification for the subject matter that is purchased comparison of different solutions) for the service programs provided by the suppliers. During the implementation stage of procurement, purchasing government agencies could also receive a subsidy of 75% for expenditure on innovation projects procured by the government under subsidy at planning stage, on the performance of tasks during research and development at the implementation stage. Or, they could be subsidized up to 50% for spending on tasks beyond research and development. The content of subsidy includes equipment, service (including management fees), travelling expenses, and other necessary expenses. The recipients of a subsidy from TEKES at these two stages, is dictated by the extent to which these government agencies are able to introduce the spirit of procurement innovation at planning and implementation stages. As such, the legal foundation for the introduction of PPI into scientific research subsidy within the ROC will be an immediate concern. In concrete terms, this is the legality of the agency for advocacy of industrial technology research and development in subsidizing government agencies using national science and technology development funds of the Executive Yuan (also known as Science Development Fund); the legality of the authority of Industrial Technology Department in subsidizing other departments of the public sector, and the issues of the applicability of the Scientific Research Procurement Monitoring Regulation to the appointment of external institutions for conducting market surveys on such needs by the public sector (collectively known as “the issues of subsidizing for innovation”). In seeking a solution on subsidy, we still have to fit dialogue between the recipients of a subsidy during the course of a ‘procurement’ project, within the legal framework currently in force. The fundamental spirit and primary concern for government procurement in the ROC, for example, will be the prevention of misconduct and corruption during the procurement procedure4. It is necessary to state such a requirement within the law, in order to avoid allegations of manipulation during the bidding process. Only by so doing could the spirit of PPI be introduced into the process. In other words, it would be a matter of sorting out the recipients of scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement without causing a contradiction between “the participation of the suppliers and users of the end-requirement or service, in the determination of the specification, terms and conditions of the procurement” from the PPI of Finland and the applicable laws currently in force. It would be necessary to design the details of the procedures (collectively known as the “issues of innovation dialogue”), which takes up the second part of this research. In summary, this paper aims to explore the dialogue of aspects of government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement. It is also an attempt to analyze the gravity of PPI and the dialogue. Finally, the findings of the discussion on the introduction of the concept of PPI to science and technology projects of the ROC (which may also be extended to the subsidy of the research and development in science and technology by the public sector of the ROC) will be presented, with consultation and recommendations for legislation. II. Analysis of the dialogue in the process of government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement in the ROC (I) There is more than one tool within the ROC for the encouragement of research and development in science and technology Governments of different countries possess different policy tools to support or encourage the private sector in the research and development of science and technology in order to shore-up insufficient resources. From the perspective of government budgeting, the design of procedures may be identical or different. For example, the US federal government instituted the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR, and defined “acquisition” as “the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, or evaluated” 5. In light of the variation between its specific features and other services, Research and Development Contracting has been specifically regulated in section 35 of FAR, which states: “The primary purpose of contracted R&D programs is to advance scientific and technical knowledge and apply that knowledge to the extent necessary to achieve agency and national goals. Unlike contracts for supplies and services, most R&D contracts are directed toward objectives for which the work or methods cannot be precisely described in advance. It is difficult to judge the probabilities of success or required effort for technical approaches, some of which offer little or no early assurance of full success. The contracting process shall be used to encourage the best sources from the scientific and industrial community to become involved in the program and must provide an environment in which the work can be pursued with reasonable flexibility and minimum administrative burden. 6” In the EU, they defined research and development beyond government procurement regulation: According to Council Directive 92/50/EEC, or known as EU Directive, the scope of application as stated in paragraph (a) of article 1, “public service contracts shall mean contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service suppliers and a contracting authority” with list of the exclusion conditions, where clause (ix) states: “research and development service contracts other than those where the benefits accrue exclusively to the contracting authority for its use in the conduct of its own affairs, on condition that the service supplied is wholly remunerated by the contracting authority. 7” As such, we can see the difference in legal requirements between the EU and USA. Whether such procurement is a special form of government procurement, or whether research and development falls beyond the regulation of government procurement procedure, it nonetheless falls under a government budget for the encouragement of technology research and development, and said research and development “cannot be forecast and not to be directly used by the procurement agency8 ”. Under the legal system of the ROC, it is a policy tool for the encouragement of research and development in science and technology, and could be classified as government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement. For scientific research subsidy, Article 9 of the Industrial Innovation Statue of the ROC 9 provides the legal origin. For example, the technology projects administered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs have been established under this law. Accordingly, the Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Research Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by Ministry of Economic Affairs (hereinafter, “institutional scientific project regulation”), the “Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Subsidy and Supervision for Assistance of Industrial Innovation (hereinafter, “Industrial Scientific Project Regulation”), and the “Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Academic Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by Ministry of Economic Affairs (hereinafter, “Academic Scientific Project Regulation” for subsidizing research and development in industrial technologies10. The result of research and development shall be released to the administering body as required by Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act 11. In the ROC, the result of science and technology projects shall be transferred to Ministry of Economic Affairs 12, which is similar to the requirement in the EU. This could be exemplified by the EU example as mentioned13 that the appointing agency is not entitled to any interest of the result. Government procurement is a vital policy tool of the government in subsidizing research and development. According to Article 2 of the Government Procurement Act 14, procurement as referred to in this law covers the outsourcing of service. Article 7 (paragraph 3) of the same law also requires that, service shall cover professional service, research and development. As such, the government will naturally adopt the means of government procurement in promoting its policy for encouragement of research and development in science and technology. Procurement is different from subsidy. The former entails an “inspection for acceptance” procedure, and the end users of the latter may not be the government. This point is different from the EU Directive in procurement 15. The third kind of tool in the ROC for the encouragement of research and development is scientific research procurement. According to Article 6 (paragraph 4 16) of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act, public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups receiving a government subsidy or appointed by the government as stated in paragraph 1, or public research agencies (institutions) proceed to procurement by preparing a budget for research and development in science and technology under law. We could analyze this issue from three aspects: 1. Public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups may receive government subsidy as stated in paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act for procurement; 2. Public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups may proceed to procurement at the appointment of the government as stated in paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act for procurement; and 3. Public research agencies (institutions) proceed to procurement by preparing a budget for research and development in science and technology under the law 17. In detail, this specific mode of scientific research procurement has its origin in Article 4 of the Government Procurement Act. The cause of the legislation for this article, dated May 27 1998, specified that: “When non-profit organizations or groups receive government subsidy for procurement, and if the amount of subsidy exceeds half of the total amount of procurement and the amount of subsidy is subject to announcement, such procurement shall be governed by this article and subject to the monitoring of the subsidizing agencies to prevent misconduct and corruption”. As such, the recipients of subsidies shall be governed by the Government Procurement Act after passing through the due procedure of subsidy if the amount of procurement meets the standard for announcement. The purpose is to prevent misconduct and corruption. Or it would not be necessary for the government to intervene, given the subsidy has been supported by its legal source in the determination of the recipients and the procedure for entering into subsidy agreement. Indeed, this is the specific feature of the Government Procurement Act of the ROC. The same principle applies to scientific research procurement in the ROC (excluded from the application of Article 4 of the Government Procurement Act), and not the exclusion of the application of the Government Procurement Act to the subsidy procedure 18. (II) Analysis of the dialogue in the process of government procurement, scientific research subsidy, and scientific research procurement III. The dialogue of government procurement In government procurement, the regulations governing an invitation to tender and decision of award require that the party for the design of the content of procurement shall be the same party in the bidding process, to avoid alleged manipulation of the bidding process. For example, Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act (paragraph 2 and 3) requires that, “The deputy agent or partners of contractor undertaking the project management shall not be the deputy agent or partners in the planning, design, construction, or of the suppliers”. Article 38 of the Enforcement Rules of the Government Procurement Act requires that, “In tender invitation, the entity shall require explicitly in the tender invitation documents that if any of the following applies to a specific bidder, such bidder shall not participate in the bidding process, as the recipient of the award, or subcontractors of the award, or assisting the bidder: 1. The contractor that provides the planning and design service shall proceed to procurement on the basis of the planning and design result”. As such, the purpose of the Government Procurement Act aims at the impartiality and neutrality of the planning of project “to prevent funneling of interest, helping each other in manipulation of the bidding process, and the bidder also assumes the role of judge during the bidding process 19”. Indeed, there is still the possibility for hearing opinions from outside the procurement entity in the procurement cases under the Government Procurement Act. The government procurement system of the ROC could be seen as a system featuring a mechanism for dialogue. The “Particulars for Implementation of Public Viewing of Documents of Public Work Tender Invitation” 20 (hereinafter, Public Viewing Particulars) could serve as an example for the introduction of user needs dialogue. The Public Viewing Particulars require that the documents for public viewing shall include the schematics of the project, the sample version of contract, sample of affidavit, sample of important notice to bidding, bill of quantities and specifications, and other documents related to the specific characters of the projects (Number 3 of the Public Viewing Particulars). The purpose of viewing is an invitation for the opinions from the contractors or the public, which will be compiled and forwarded to the organizer of the project for processing before making an announcement for invitation to tender (Number 8 of the Public Viewing Particulars). As such, public opinions could be presented at this stage as a response to the content of the aforementioned documents in addition to the contractors. There is no delineated scope of public opinion, and could cover the objective content of the procurement. However, the type of projects subject to public viewing are of a specific nature or the amount of the engineering projects shall be subject to an audit (Number 2 of the Public Viewing Particulars), which excludes the procurement of research and development. In addition, the purpose of the Public Viewing Particulars is the transparency and openness of the tender invitation process for public work. Through the public viewing of tender invitation documents, the opinions from the contractors or the public can be heard. This can help to upgrade the quality of the planning and design of public works projects and reduce possible disputes deriving from tender invitations or performance of contract (Number 2 of the Public Viewing Particulars). As such, the purpose of this arrangement is not aimed at the necessity of the procurement of engineering projects. The possibility of applying the concept of PPI to this system of public viewing could be considered. If we think of the content for public viewing as including the schematics of the projects, the subject matter of the purchase is very substantive. In the future, it is expected that the objective of public viewing shall include subject matters that do not yet have a concrete plan, but still the opinions of the user and producer would be properly heard. 1. The dialogue of scientific research subsidy In the domain of scientific research subsidy of the ROC, the topics for subsidy are selected through the top-down mode. According to Article 7 of the institutional scientific project regulation, “The MOEA shall invite the experts from the industry, government agencies (institutions), academic and research institutions to meetings for strategic planning of industrial innovation and research and development, and consider the opinions from these social sectors to design for the direction of industrial innovation and research and development in the future”. Article 11 of the same regulation also requires that, “The MOEA may unleash the urgent industrial technology development plan on industrial technology that needs to be launched urgently as approved by MOEA or Executive Yuan”. As such, the law has already included the opinions and thoughts from the industry, government, and the academeia in designing of the recipient of subsidy. As compared with the measures adopted in Finland, this regulation is different, and the practice of Finland aims at obtaining suggestions during the course of “procurement”. Or, we could say that the introduction of the PPI concept in the subsidy mechanism could help to broaden the scope of the legal adjustment. Under the scientific project subsidy mechanism currently in effect, if we do not cut into the problem from the aforementioned mode of topic selection for subsidy, the cooperative education activities in the course of the execution of the subsidy plan are emphasized in the subsidy of scientific project for the institutions, academia, and industry 21. Further to the requirements of the regulation in principle, a variety of options could be used for integrating the needs of the industry in order to achieve the goal of the dialogue for “encouraging” research and development and the needs of the industry in practice. Individual agreements can help to achieve this goal. Currently, there are requirements specified in the notice to applicants for scientific projects within the field of academia, which feature detailed requirements for our analysis. We could take the prototype important notice to applicants (general academic scientific project) and the requirements therein commonly used in the development of industrial technology projects by the academic circle. To encouraging close cooperation between schools and the industry and research institutions, the source of funding for the projects shall be incorporated with the fees for supporting bodies with the requirements for the relevant proportion of funding on the basis of the domain of the subject matter of the project topic and the geographic location of the schools 22. If we take a closer look at the important notice of the application for a local academic development of an industrial technology project (local academic technology project), we could see that the system design features the needs of local industry. A local academic technology project is positioned for the upgrading of the research and development of specific technologies of local industries and the advocacy of regional industrial development with regional characteristics. As such, the items eligible for subsidy are innovative, prospective or critical technologies required by the industry, or modes of operation, corporate management skills or innovative service advantageous for industrial development 23. As such, the applicants must attach the letter of intent issued by at least three enterprises in the application procedure, and can prove that the objective of the project for subsidy is to a certain extent meeting the needs of local industry. 2. The dialogue of scientific research procurement For scientific research procurement, the “Regulations Governing Procurements for Scientific and Technological Research and Development” (hereinafter, “Monitoring Regulation”) instituted at the authorization of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act serves as the legal source for the entities or procurement authority to undertake scientific research procurement. The Monitoring Regulation aims at monitoring and management and also provides the legal environment for dialogue for scientific research procurement. This could be the starting point for scientific research procurement innovation. According to Article 7 of the Monitoring Regulation, “Where necessary, public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups may proceed to consultation with the suppliers respecting the works for procurement, the specifications of properties or service needs before entering into agreement on scientific research procurement”. As such, the requirements under the Monitoring Regulations allow flexibility for the procurement authority in pursuing scientific research procurement, as they can engage in consultation with the ‘suppliers’. The topics for consultation covered the works for procurements, the specification of properties or service needs. There is one thing that needs to be differentiated, the mechanism of “consultation”, which is different from the consultation under the Government Procurement Act. Consultation as specified in the Government Procurement Act is a kind of supplementary measure applicable only when no decision of award can be made to the best bid 24, or it is difficult to determine the best bid 25. In addition, only the provisions contained in the original documents labeled as amendable could fall into the scope of consultation 26. As such, the subject matter of procurement specified in the tender invitation document shall be the fundamental requirement of the procurement case. In other words, the procurement authority has already known the purchase needs, which is different from the tentative IPP scheme of Finland. The latter aims at the encouragement for the participation of the suppliers of the service and the users in the process of determining the specification for procurement, and the terms and conditions of procurement, which is an immediate concern of the government for solutions and the development of the state to tackle challenges in the future. In other words, the IPP scheme of Finland aims at providing a solution for the procurement authority and the content of procurement is uncertain or is difficult to define due to the rapid change in the environment. (III) Concluding remarks─ the subject matter of dialogue under the concept of PPI and the possibility of preventing misconduct and corruption The study of this section leads to a preliminary conclusion that the legal framework of ROC for scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement provides the mechanism for possible dialogues between the subsidy providers/procurement authority and the recipients of subsidy/bidders. Even the public viewing system of government procurement could incorporate the channels for public opinions. These could serve as the starting points for the introduction of PPI concept. Yet, there are two points to be clarified and resolved if we compare the aforementioned legal system and the PPI concept of the EU or the implementation of the IPP scheme in Finland if we are to introduce related practices First of all, if we elect to understand the aforementioned mechanism of government procurement and scientific research procurement from the perspective of dialogue/participation mechanism, the participants in the dialogues are still the subsidy providers or procurement authority and the service/goods suppliers. It is not a dialogue directly involving the users of public service (at this point, we could see the eventual purpose of the result of research and development as a form of public service). However, the spirit of the system currently in effect aims at matching the users for an indirect dialogue through this mode to a certain extent. For example, the integration of the academic scientific research project with the intent of the general and local participating firms as a necessary condition in the application, which approximates the mode of dialogue with the users of public service in the future. This arrangement is made in consideration that the firms and the market are the closest entities in the process, and is incorporated as a part of the user needs (of course, if we equate the two parties, there is the risk that the firms orchestrate market needs or making profits as the primary goal). Secondly, the gravity of the law in the ROC rests with the prevention of misconduct and corruption. This is particularly the case in the Government Procurement Act. Therefore, the foremost issue of introducing the concept of government procurement innovation to the ROC, that is the design of a system that features a mechanism for the prevention of misconduct and corruption to avoid “manipulation of the bidding process”, is yet to be resolved, and will be discussed later in this paper. IV. Analysis of the introduction of PPI into the laws governing scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement (I) Suggestions and thoughts for the incorporation of PPI into the legal framework of government procurement Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act and Article 38 of its implementation procedure have set forth strict criteria for the prevention of “participants who also act as judges”. Yet, the so-called “contractors providing planning and design service” do not apply to all contractors that have provided planning suggestions but particularly point to the contractors that have been appointed by the entity to engage in the planning, design, or working on the preparation of tender invitation documents 27. In practice, the parties concerned tended to “keep a distance from” the prospective bidders in order to avoid inadvertent violation of the law. As such, there is an exception in law that excludes situations of no conflict of interest or no unfair competition 28. If we are to introduce the concept of PPI into government procurement of science and technology research and development, additional provisions must be added to the aforementioned law to provide explicit legal grounds for practice, before the entities can possibly or willingly introduce dialogue between the supplier and the user. As for the public viewing system in existence, it provides the possibility of a similar setting under the same spirit. As explained, the subject matter for receiving public opinions is still the content of the plan, which is different from the dialogue between the “supplier” and the “users’ being encouraged in the procurement planning stage under IPP in Finland. In summary, suggestions for introducing PPI to government procurement practice of the ROC within the legal framework are detailed below: First, the Government Procurement Act primarily aims at the prevention of misconduct and corruption. The introduction of the PPI concept entails higher cost of legislation, which requires amendment to the procurement act to provide the legal grounds. At the same time, the reconciliation with the rule of avoidance of the conflict of interest current practiced in procurement and the settlement of relate issues shall also be taken in account. Second, it could be possible to include the procurement of professional service or research and development in the Public Viewing Particulars in order to introduce the concept of PPI. In so doing, we must consider the entrance barrier on the procurement of engineering projects previously covered by the Public Viewing Particulars. This may be designed for avoiding the incurrence of additional administrative cost and bolstering administrative efficiency (for example, the procurement of engineering projects not exceeding specific amount, the addition of the requirement of public viewing, may delay the procurement procedure and hamper competition). For the outsourcing of professional services or research and development, appropriate consideration should be taken. (II) Suggestions and thoughts for the incorporation of PPI into the legal framework of scientific research subsidy The legal sources for governing scientific research subsidy are Article 7 and Article 11 of the institutional scientific project regulation, as in the case of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the important notice to applicants for general and local academic technology projects in their design. First, Article 7 of the institutional scientific project regulation requires that, Ministry of Economic Affairs shall invite experts from the industry, government agencies (institutions), academia and research institutions to the strategic planning of industrial innovation and research and development and consider the opinions from these experts in order to plan for the direction of industrial innovation and research and development in the future. The planning of the direction for innovation research and development could be included as an item for the development of industrial technology and should be the direction expected by all. For example, the Ministry of Economic Affairs has held the “National Industrial Development Conference” in December 2012, and opened to public opinions on four reformations in three industries on the advocacy of adding value to industrial innovation, structuring of positive investment environment, and other common topics. This is similar to PPI, which may include the absorption of and communication with the opinions of the “users”. But there is one point of variation. This is a matter of the use of planning strategy, and is the planning of the overall industrial technology development direction from top-down. In PPI, this will be the direct dialogue between the suppliers of service/properties and the end users in order to encourage the innovative solutions for the procurement. They may be at different levels. Second, the principle for the subsidy of general and local academic scientific projects requires the funding in proportion of the participating units or the letter of intent signed by the owners of at least three enterprises, which could be stated as the requirement of cooperative education programs. Article 12 of the institutional scientific project regulation, Article 8 of the academic scientific project regulation, and Article 4 of the industrial scientific project regulation have the provisions for encouraging cooperation education and could serve as the legal source for such a purpose. The pilot project of procurement in Finland adopted the dialogue between the prospective suppliers of service providers and the end users at the planning stage of procurement. This may be defying the principle of the procurement act. In the ROC, the subsidy procedure and the procurement procure are governed by different sets of laws. As such, the restriction of the Government Procurement Act does not exist in the legal rules governing the subsidy procedure. As such, there is little concern over the violation of the law. However, we have to pay attention to Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act 29 on the issue of the avoidance of interest in the entitlement and use of the result of scientific research under government subsidy, at the appointment of or funded by the government. In other words, the legal rules governing subsidy have not restricted the possibility of dialogue between the “supplier” and “end users” of the science technology research and development project at the preliminary planning stage. The substantive terms of requirement are stated in Article 12-1 of the “Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Entitlement and Use of The Result of Science and Technology Research and Development”, the procurement authority shall establish the management mechanism or regulations, or report to the Ministry for record on the avoidance of the conflict of interest or related disclosure of the result of research and development. Attention is required for possible violation against related requirements of the avoidance of the conflict of interest and disclosure of the procurement authority. But if we take a closer look at the Fundamental Science and Technology Act in the aspect of the avoidance of the conflict of interest, and compare with the dialogue between the procurer and the users at the planning stage, there may be room for legality. It is because the Fundamental Science and Technology Act requires only the entitlement and use of the result of research and development, which is the output of the project, and not the avoidance of the conflict of interest at the planning stage and implementation stage. This is the difference in the substance. Even though there is no dialogue after the outcome of the project, the performer may still have a conflict of interest under certain circumstances, which should also be considered. For example, the procurement authority declares its position on the opinions presented at the planning stage is indeed the suggestion of the result of research and development of the only party that has the technical capacity in the technology market that can undertake the research and development. In summary, suggestions for introducing PPI to government scientific research subsidy projects in the ROC within the legal framework are detailed below: First, we could incorporate relevant dialogue mechanisms at the project planning stage, in a timely fashion and in accordance with the requirements for encouraging cooperative education within the legal framework of scientific research subsidy administered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs currently in effect. Second, legal rules governing scientific research subsidy administered by the Ministry of Economic Affairs currently in effect do not restrict any dialogue between the recipient of subsidy (the so-called “supplier”) and the “end user” at the planning stage or in the future, but whether or not such an act will violate the requirements of relevant procurement authority in the avoidance of conflict of interest, deserves our attention. (III) Suggestions and thoughts for the incorporation of PPI into the legal framework scientific research procurement In the domain of scientific project procurement, Article 7 of the Monitoring Regulation sets forth that suppliers may involved in consultation on issues related to the works for procurement, specification of properties, or service needs. This provides the legal source for the trial use of the IPP scheme of Finland in the ROC, but we have to consider two things. First, the provision sets for the consultation with the supplier only, and it is, by and large, the dialogue mechanism only after the determination of the subject matter of procurement, which is different from the IPP of Finland. Also, the dialogue with the end user does not fall within the scope of such legal source, and, there is still room to define who could be positioned as the “end user”. Yet, it is two sides of the same coin. There is a legal framework in place without detailed requirement. As such, the procurement authority may design the procedure in fuller detail in this space as needed. Finally, the scope of scientific research procurement in the ROC is not as broad as the subsidy cases (refer to the definition of scientific research procurement above). As such, the majority of scientific research procurement is already at the cooperative education stage under individual subsidy or appointment of the government (except the work under the scientific research and development budget prepared by the public research institutions). If we introduce the concept of PPI into the scientific research procurement stage, the content and the scope have already fallen into the framework of the previous subsidy plan, and there is little room for the incorporation of dialogue and opinions. In summary, the suggestions for introducing PPI to scientific research procurement of the ROC within the legal framework are detailed below: First, the Monitoring Regulation of scientific research procurement provides the mechanism for consultation but does not define the subject matter of consultation in procurement. As such, the scope for hearing opinions is limited. Further, the dialogue with the users has not been covered. The overall implementation procedure requires refinement for proper enforcement. Second, the scope of scientific research procurement is limited to the procurement under an individual subsidy program or at the appointment of the government, and falls within the scope of the content for the previous subsidy program or the program at the appointment of the government in principle. As such, the effect of introducing PPI is limited. V. Conclusion – A Discussion on Introducing the PPI into Science and Technology Projects and Suggestions for Legislation within the ROC The above are overall observations on the analysis of the introduction of PPI to scientific research subsidy, government procurement, and scientific research procurement in the ROC. In the “Issue of dialogue for innovation”, we should consider to start with scientific research subsidy. The primary reason is that there is room within the legal framework under the Monitoring Regulations governing scientific research procurement, but in practice, more substantive terms could be developed. However, the scope of the legal framework for the applicability of scientific research procurement is confined to the procurement made under subsidy or at the appointment of the government on specific programs. The effect of trial running PPI is very little under the framework of subsidy or appointment by the government. Finally, the feasibility of introducing PPI to the scientific research projects of the ROC, which is the “subsidy innovation issue”, is analyzed below: First, the legality of using scientific development fund to subsidize other government agencies: Article 5 of the “National Science and Technology Development Fund Management and Utilization Regulation of Executive Yuan” sets forth the use of the fund, including “expenditure on the advocacy of overall technology development of the nation”, “expenditure on the improvement of the research and development environment for science and technology”. As such, the introduction of the trial run of IPP schemes in Finland would comply with the aforementioned provisions. Second, the legality of subsidizing the public sector by advocating science and technology research and development, like the Department of Industrial Technology at the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the future: reference could be taken from Article 9 of the Ministry of Economic and Energy Affairs Articles of Association (Draft) under which the Department of Industrial Technology shall administer, “1. Strategic planning and implementation in technology under the jurisdiction of the ministry”, and the “planning of technology funding resources, and the establishment of implementation system and evaluation system”. As such, the model of the IPP scheme of Finland is not compatible with the authority and function of the Department of Industrial Technology. In other words, the Department of Industrial Technology shall not perform the function of subsidizing/advocating the duties of procurement innovation of other government agencies, but can introduce the concept of PPI for trial running within its scope of legal framework (e.g., scientific research procurement). Third, the issue of outsourcing for survey of market needs by the public sector on the applicability of the Monitoring Regulation. If the work for outsourcing is an item of work under previous subsidy or work at the appointment of the government, and the fund of the project for procurement is regulated by the Monitoring Regulations. However, for survey of market needs purely planned for subsidy by the entity or required by the procurement cases, they fall within the category of general procurement of service and the Government Procurement Act shall be applicable. In sum, the PPI concept under the FP7 of the EU has been subject to trial run through the IPP scheme of Finland. In Finland, the evaluation mechanism has not yet been fully established. Yet, such attempt to provide a solution for specific subject matter of procurement for the country that faces the rapid changing objective environment through the absorption of dialogue and opinions for innovative solutions is new in the world, and could be considered for adoption within the ROC that has similar challenges in the objective environment. As such, we could start with scientific research procurement. The evaluation of the result is promising; this could be incorporated into the design of the mechanism for scientific research subsidy. For the scope governed by the Government Procurement Act, it entails high cost for amendment, and should be left a subsequent choice for review and planning. 1.TEKES Homepage, http://www.tekes.fi/en/community/Home/351/Home/473 (last visited June 15, 2013). 2.The IPP scheme is the response of Finland to FP7 of the EU in proposing the Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions, PPI. In this paper, PPI and IPP share the same concept while the latter is the substantive name of the pilot project in Finland. See Huang Huei-Hsiang, “International Practice and Legal Analysis of the Advocacy of Government Procurement Innovation – a case study on IPP of TEKES, Finland”, Science and Technology Law Review, Vol. 25 No. 10. PP. 27-45 (2013), by. 3.Pre-commercial procurement, PCP, is the procurement of the government for creating a market and appeals mainly to the service supplier with emphasis the difference from the dialogue between the users and the suppliers. 4.Article 1 of the Government Procurement Act, “This law is instituted for the establishment of a government procurement system to the extent of setting up a fair and transparent procurement procedure, upgrade the efficiency and function of procurement, and guarantee the quality of procurement”. Although this law is instituted for achieving the objective of upgrading procurement efficiency and function, and guarantee of procurement quality, the procedure of the Government Procurement Act aims at keeping distance with the prospective contractors in the procurement process to avoid possible allegation of manipulation of the bidding process, monopoly of the tender, and profit seeking. 5.Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101, “Acquisition’ means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated.” FAR Home Page, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%202_1.html#wp1145507 (last visited June 15, 2013). 6.Federal Acquisition Regulation 35.002, “The primary purpose of contracted R&D programs is to advance scientific and technical knowledge and apply that knowledge to the extent necessary to achieve agency and national goals. Unlike contracts for supplies and services, most R&D contracts are directed toward objectives for which the work or methods cannot be precisely described in advance. It is difficult to judge the probabilities of success or required effort for technical approaches, some of which offer little or no early assurance of full success. The contracting process shall be used to encourage the best sources from the scientific and industrial community to become involved in the program and must provide an environment in which the work can be pursued with reasonable flexibility and minimum administrative burden.” FAR Home Page, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/FARTOCP35.html#wp223483 (last visited June 15, 2013). 7.“For the purposes of this Directive: (a) public service contracts shall mean contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a service provider and a contracting authority, to the exclusion of:…(ix) research and development service contracts other than those where the benefits accrue exclusively to the contracting authority for its use in the conduct of its own affairs, on condition that the service provided is wholly remunerated by the contracting authority;” Council Directive 92/50/EEC, art. 1, 1992 O.J. (L 209) 1,3. 8.In “Critique of Scientific Research Procurement after the Amendment to Article VI of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act ”, in Science and Technology Law, Vol. 24, No. 10, PP, 29-32 (2012), by Chen Shih-Chieh. 9.Article 9 of the Industrial Innovation Statue, “Competent authorities at the central government may advocate the following in the form of subsidy or supervision: I. Encouragement of industrial innovation or research and development. II. Supply or industrial technology and supervision of industrial upgrading. III. Encouragement for the establishment of innovation or research and development center in the enterprises. IV. Assistance in the establishment of innovation or research and development institutions. V. Encouragement of cooperation among the industry, academic circle, and research institutions. VI. Encouragement of the input to schools by enterprises for the training and development of talents. VII. Augmentation of human resources in the industry. VIII. Assistance in the innovation of regional industries. IX. Any others that help to encourage industrial innovation or research and development. The recipients of the aforementioned subsidy or supervision, the qualification requirements, criteria for screening, application procedure, authority for approval, and other related rules and regulation shall be established by respective competent authority of the central government”. 10.For example, Article 4 of the academic scientific project regulation, “The MOEA shall subsidize academic institutions to perform the following research and development for the advocacy of industrial development and reinforcement of innovation capacity for the country…” 11.Article 6 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act , “The parties for awarding science and technology research and development subsidized, appointed, funded by the government, or under a budget prepared by public research agencies (institutions) on science and technology research and development shall be determined by evaluation or review process with justifiable reasons for the evaluation and review. The resulting intellectual property rights and result in whole or in part shall be entitled to the pursuer of research and development or authorization for use irrespective of the restriction of state-owned properties”. 12.Article 6 of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Entitlement and Utilization of Science and Technology Research and Development Result, “The result of science and technology project of the pursuer shall be entitled to the pursuer unless otherwise specified in This Regulation”. 13.In the EU, the provision of “The procurement authority shall be responsible for all the expenses incurred from the service supply and the benefit so generated shall be owned by the procurement authority for its needs in operation” served as an exception of contracted service of research and development. In other words, the interpretation is inversely made to the extent that contracted service of research and development in the EU is not entitled to the procurement authority. 14.Article 2 of the Government Procurement Act, “Procurement as referred in this law shall be job order for work, the purchase, making to order, leasing of properties and the contract for service or employment”. Article 7 of the same law, “Work as referred to in this law shall be act of building, addition, renovation, remodeling, demolition of structures and equipment accessory to the structures above and below ground level, and the act to change the natural environment, including building, civil engineering Hydraulic engineering, water work, environment, transportation, machinery, electric, chemical engineering and any other engineering project recognized by the competent authority. Properties as referred to in this law are items(except fresh agricultural or aquacultural products), materials, equipment, machinery and other movables, real properties, rights, and other properties recognized by the competent authority. Service as referred to in this law shall be professional service, technical service, information service, research and development, corporate management, repair and maintenance, training, labor, and other forms of service recognized by the competent authority. Where the procurement may involve two or more of the aforementioned content, which made it difficult to identify the very nature, the content accounted for a larger proportion of the budget for total work shall stand”. 15.Op. Cit, Note 13. 16.Article 6 – Paragraph 4 of the Fundamental Science and Technology Act , “the Government Procurement Act shall not be applicable to public schools, public research agencies (institutions), non-profit organizations or groups receiving government subsidy or assignment, or procurement of public research agencies (institutions) under a budget of science and technology research and development prepared in compliance with applicable law unless otherwise specified in a treaty or agreement binding the ROC and a third country. Yet, they are subject to the monitoring of the subsidizing, assigning, or the competent authority. The regulation for monitoring and management shall be established by the competent authority in the central government”. 17.Op. Cit. Note 8, PP36-37. 18.Table of “Research and Development Projects” governed by the “Government Procurement Act” under Public Construction Commission, Executive Yuan Letter Chi-Tzi No. 89009844. The Government Procurement Act shall not be applicable to the selection of the recipients of subsidy. 19.The cause of legislation for Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act dated May 27 2998, “II. Paragraph II and III explicitly state that contractors may act on behalf of the entity in project management, and shall be in specific relation with the contractors responsible for the planning, design, construction of the project to avoid funneling of interest, cover up each other, and acting as a participant and the judge at the same time”. 20.Particulars for Public Viewing of Tender Invitation Documents of Public Works, at http://lawweb.pcc.gov.tw/LawContentDetails.aspx?id=FL029347&KeyWordHL=&StyleType=1 （last browsing date: 2013/6/15） 21.Article 12 of the Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Research Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, “The MOEA or its functionaries shall encourage research institutions to introduce technologies, joint ventures in the development and participation in the pursuit of technology projects through interdisciplinary or cross-function cooperation for the effective integration of domestic and foreign research and development resources and capacity, the assistance of the upgrading of traditional industries, or advocacy of the development of knowledge service for the best interest of the industry”. Article 8 of the Regulation Governing the Subsidy of Academic Institutions in Industrial Innovation and Research and Development Advocated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs , “The MOEA shall request the applicants of academic technology projects to invite the joint participation of research institutions or companies and execute the academic technology project in interdisciplinary or cross-function mode of operation for the effective integration of research and development resources and capacities at home and abroad and create the optimized result in industry”. Article 4 of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Regulation Governing the Subsidy and Supervision for Assistance of Industrial Innovation, “The MOEA or its functionaries may provide subsidy for the following industrial innovative activities:… IV. Encouragement for joint venture among the industry, academia, and research institutions”. 22.Refer to important notice of application for general type of projects, IV. Types of subsidies for general academic scientific research projects. 23.Refer to important notice of application for local type of projects, III. The positioning, nature, and subsidy for local academic scientific research projects. 24.Article 55 of the Government Procurement Act, “Entities taking minimum offer for procurement and have been approved by the senior authority and announced in the notice of tender and the tender invitation documents and cannot determine the award pursuant to the requirements or preceding two articles may proceed to consultation”. 25.Article 56 of the Government Procurement Act, “ …if the evaluation result cannot determine the best bid on the basis of the decision of the head of entity or more than half of the members of the evaluation committee, proceed to consultation and comprehensive evaluation for determining the best bid”. 26.Article 57 of the Government Procurement Act, “Entity elects to proceed to consultation in accordance to the requirements specified in the previous two articles shall comply with the following principles: … III. The content of the original tender invitation documents to be revised shall be highlighted before proceeding to consultation”. 27.Paragraph 1, Article 39 of the Government Procurement Act, “Entities may assign the duties of project management in planning, design, supply, or performance of contract to a contractor in procurement under this law when making procurement”. 28.Paragraph 2, Article 38 of the Government Procurement Act Implementation Procedure, “Subsequent procurement procedure shall not be applicable to situations specified in I and II of the previous section if there is no alleged conflict of interest or unfair competition and at the approval of the entity”. 29.Paragraph 3, Article 6 of Fundamental Science and Technology Act , “The Executive Yuan shall coordinate and regulate the entitlement and utilization of the intellectual property right and result as mentioned in preceding two sections under the principle of equity and effectiveness, with reference to the proportion and contribution of capital and service, the nature, potential of utilization, social benefit, national security and the effect on the market of the result of science and technology research and development, and on the basis of its purpose, necessary condition, duration, scope, proportion in whole or in part, registration, management, distribution of incomes, avoidance of conflict of interest and the disclosure of related information, the intervention of the subsidizing agent in authorization of a third party, or procedure for nationalization. Respective competent authority at different level shall establish relevant legal rules for such purpose”.
Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Scientific Research Legal System and Response Thereto (1) – For Example, The Finnish Innovation Fund (“SITRA”)Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Scientific Research Legal System and Response Thereto (1) – For Example, The Finnish Innovation Fund (“SITRA”) I. Foreword We hereby aim to analyze and research the role played by The Finnish Innovation Fund (“Sitra”) in boosting the national innovation ability and propose the characteristics of its organization and operation which may afford to facilitate the deliberation on Taiwan’s legal system. Sitra is an independent organization which is used to reporting to the Finnish Parliament directly, dedicated to funding activities to boost sustainable development as its ultimate goal and oriented toward the needs for social change. As of 2004, it promoted the fixed-term program. Until 2012, it, in turn, primarily engaged in 3-year program for ecological sustainable development and enhancement of society in 2012. The former aimed at the sustainable use of natural resources to develop new structures and business models and to boost the development of a bioeconomy and low-carbon society, while the latter aimed to create a more well-being-oriented public administrative environment to upgrade various public sectors’ leadership and decision-making ability to introduce nationals’ opinion to policies and the potential of building new business models and venture capital businesses[1]. II. Standing and Operating Instrument of Sitra 1. Sitra Standing in Boosting of Finnish Innovation Policies (1) Positive Impact from Support of Innovation R&D Activities by Public Sector Utilization of public sector’s resources to facilitate and boost industrial innovation R&D ability is commonly applied in various countries in the world. Notwithstanding, the impact of the public sector’s investment of resources produced to the technical R&D and the entire society remains explorable[2]. Most studies still indicate positive impact, primarily as a result of the market failure. Some studies indicate that the impact of the public sector’s investment of resources may be observable at least from several points of view, including: 1. The direct output of the investment per se and the corresponding R&D investment potentially derived from investees; 2. R&D of outputs derived from the R&D investment, e.g., products, services and production methods, etc.; 3. direct impact derived from the R&D scope, e.g., development of a new business, or new business and service models, etc.; 4. impact to national and social economies, e.g., change of industrial structures and improvement of employment environment, etc. Most studies indicate that from the various points of view, the investment by public sector all produced positive impacts and, therefore, such investment is needed definitely[3]. The public sector may invest in R&D in diversified manners. Sitra invests in the “market” as an investor of corporate venture investment market, which plays a role different from the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (“Tekes”), which is more like a governmental subsidizer. Nevertheless, Finland’s characteristics reside in the combination of multiple funding and promotion models. Above all, due to the different behavior model, the role played by the former is also held different from those played by the general public sectors. This is why we choose the former as the subject to be studied herein. Data source: Jari Hyvärinen & Anna-Maija Rautiainen, Measuring additionality and systemic impacts of public research and development funding – the case of TEKES, FINLAND, RESEARCH EVALUATION, 16(3), 205, 206 (2007). Fig. 1 Phased Efforts of Resources Invested in R&D by Public Sector (2) Two Sided f Role Played by Sitra in Boosting of Finnish Innovation Policies Sitra has a very special position in Finland’s national innovation policies, as it not only helps successful implementation of the innovation policies but also acts an intermediary among the relevant entities. Sitra was founded in 1967 under supervision of the Bank of Finland before 1991, but was transformed into an independent foundation under the direction of the Finnish Parliament[4]. Though Sitra is a public foundation, its operation will not be intervened or restricted by the government. Sitra may initiate any innovation activities for its new organization or system, playing a role dedicated to funding technical R&D or promoting venture capital business. Meanwhile, Sitra also assumes some special function dedicated to decision-makers’ training and organizing decision-maker network to boost structural change. Therefore, Sitra may be identified as a special organization which may act flexibly and possess resources at the same time and, therefore, may initiate various innovation activities rapidly[5]. Sitra is authorized to boost the development of innovation activities in said flexible and characteristic manner in accordance with the Finland Innovation Fund Act (Laki Suomen itsenäisyyden juhlarahastosta). According to the Act, Finland established Sitra in 1967 and Sitra was under supervision of Bank of Finland (Article 1). Sitra was established in order to boost the stable growth of Finland’s economy via the national instrument’s support of R&D and education or other development instruments (Article 2). The policies which Sitra may adopt include loaning or funding, guarantee, marketable securities, participation in cooperative programs, partnership or equity investment (Article 3). If necessary, Sitra may collect the title of real estate or corporate shares (Article 7). Data source: Finnish innovation system, Research.fi, http://www.research.fi/en/innovationsystem.html (last visited Mar. 15, 2013). Fig. 2 Finnish Scientific Research Organization Chart Sitra's innovation role has been evolved through two changes. Specifically, Sitra was primarily dedicated to funding technical R&D among the public sectors in Finland, and the funding model applied by Sitra prior to the changes initiated the technical R&D promotion by Tekes, which was established in 1983. The first change of Sitra took place in 1987. After that, Sitra turned to focus on the business development and venture capital invested in technology business and led the venture capital investment. Meanwhile, it became a partner of private investment funds and thereby boosted the growth of venture capital investments in Finland in 1990. In 2000, the second change of Sitra took place and Sitra’s organization orientation was changed again. It achieved the new goal for structural change step by step by boosting the experimental social innovation activities. Sitra believed that it should play the role contributing to procedural change and reducing systematic obstacles, e.g., various organizational or institutional deadlocks[6]. Among the innovation policies boosted by the Finnish Government, the support of Start-Ups via governmental power has always been the most important one. Therefore, the Finnish Government is used to playing a positive role in the process of developing the venture capital investment market. In 1967, the Government established a venture capital company named Sponsor Oy with the support from Bank of Finland, and Sponsor Oy was privatized after 1983. Finland Government also established Kera Innovation Fund (now known as Finnvera[7]) in 1971, which was dedicated to boosting the booming of Start-Ups in Finland jointly with Finnish Industry Investment Ltd. (“FII”) established by the Government in 1994, and Sitra, so as to make the “innovation” become the main development force of the country[8] . Sitra plays a very important role in the foundation and development of venture capital market in Finland and is critical to the Finnish Venture Capital Association established in 1990. After Bank of Finland was under supervision of Finnish Parliament in 1991, Sitra became on the most important venture capital investors. Now, a large portion of private venture capital funds are provided by Sitra[9]. Since Sitra launched the new strategic program in 2004, it has turned to apply smaller sized strategic programs when investing young innovation companies, some of which involved venture capital investment. The mapping of young innovation entrepreneurs and angel investors started as of 1996[10]. In addition to being an important innovation R&D promoter in Finland, Sitra is also an excellent organization which is financially self-sufficient and tends to gain profit no less than that to be generated by a private enterprise. As an organization subordinated to the Finnish Parliament immediately, all of Sitra’s decisions are directly reported to the Parliament (public opinion). Chairman of Board, Board of Directors and supervisors of Sitra are all appointed by the Parliament directly[11]. Its working funds are generated from interest accruing from the Fund and investment income from the Fund, not tax revenue or budget prepared by the Government any longer. The total fund initially founded by Bank of Finland amounted to DEM100,000,000 (approximately EUR17,000,000), and was accumulated to DEM500,000,000 (approximately EUR84,000,000) from 1972 to 1992. After that, following the increase in market value, its nominal capital amounted to DEM1,400,000,000 (approximately EUR235,000,000) from 1993 to 2001. Obviously, Sitra generated high investment income. Until 2010, it has generated the investment income amounting to EUR697,000,000 . In fact, Sitra’s concern about venture capital investment is identified as one of the important changes in Finland's national technical R&D polices after 1990[13]. Sitra is used to funding businesses in three manners, i.e., direct investment in domestic stock, investment in Finnish venture capital funds, and investment in international venture capital funds, primarily in four industries, technology, life science, regional cooperation and small-sized & medium-sized starts-up. Meanwhile, it also invests in venture capital funds for high-tech industries actively. In addition to innovation technology companies, technical service providers are also its invested subjects[14]. 2. “Investment” Instrument Applied by Sitra to Boost Innovation Business The Starts-Up funding activity conducted by Sitra is named PreSeed Program, including INTRO investors’ mapping platform dedicated to mapping 450 angel investment funds and entrepreneurs, LIKSA engaged in working with Tekes to funding new companies no more than EUR40,000 for purchase of consultation services (a half thereof funded by Tekes, and the other half funded by Sitra in the form of loan convertible to shares), DIILI service[15] dedicated to providing entrepreneurs with professional sale consultation resources to integrate the innovation activity (product thereof) and the market to remedy the deficit in the new company’s ability to sell[16]. The investment subjects are stated as following. Sitra has three investment subjects, namely, corporate investments, fund investments and project funding. (1) Corporate investment Sitra will not “fund” enterprises directly or provide the enterprises with services without consideration (small-sized and medium-sized enterprises are aided by other competent authorities), but invest in the businesses which are held able to develop positive effects to the society, e.g., health promotion, social problem solutions, utilization of energy and effective utilization of natural resources. Notwithstanding, in order to seek fair rate of return, Sitra is dedicated to making the investment (in various enterprises) by its professional management and technology, products or competitiveness of services, and ranging from EUR300,000 to EUR1,000,000 to acquire 10-30% of the ownership of the enterprises, namely equity investment or convertible funding. Sitra requires its investees to value corporate social responsibility and actively participate in social activities. It usually holds the shares from 4 years to 10 years, during which period it will participate the corporate operation actively (e.g., appointment of directors)[17]. (2) Fund investments For fund investments[18], Sitra invests in more than 50 venture capital funds[19]. It invests in domestic venture capital fund market to promote the development of the market and help starts-up seek funding and create new business models, such as public-private partnerships. It invests in international venture capital funds to enhance the networking and solicit international funding, which may help Finnish enterprises access international trend information and adapt to the international market. (3) Project funding For project funding, Sitra provides the on-site information survey (supply of information and view critical to the program), analysis of business activities (analysis of future challenges and opportunities) and research & drafting of strategies (collection and integration of professional information and talents to help decision making), and commissioning of the program (to test new operating model by commissioning to deal with the challenge from social changes). Notwithstanding, please note that Sitra does not invest in academic study programs, research papers or business R&D programs[20]. (4) DIILI Investment Model Integrated With Investment Absorption A Start-Up usually will not lack technologies (usually, it starts business by virtue of some advanced technology) or foresighted philosophy when it is founded initially, while it often lacks the key to success, the marketing ability. Sitra DIILI is dedicated to providing the professional international marketing service to help starts-up gain profit successfully. Owing to the fact that starts-up are usually founded by R&D personnel or research-oriented technicians, who are not specialized in marketing and usually retains no sufficient fund to employ marketing professionals, DILLI is engaged in providing dedicated marketing talents. Now, it employs about 85 marketing professionals and seeks to become a start-up partner by investing technical services. Notwithstanding, in light of the characteristics of Sitra’s operation and profitability, some people indicate that it is more similar to a developer of an innovation system, rather than a neutral operator. Therefore, it is not unlikely to hinder some work development which might be less profitable (e.g., establishment of platform). Further, Sitra is used to developing some new investment projects or areas and then founding spin-off companies after developing the projects successfully. The way in which it operates seems to be non-compatible with the development of some industries which require permanent support from the public sector. The other issues, such as INTRO lacking transparency and Sitra's control over investment objectives likely to result in adverse choice, all arise from Sitra’s consideration to its own investment opportunities and profit at the same time of mapping. Therefore, some people consider that it should be necessary to move forward toward a more transparent structure or a non-income-oriented funding structure[21] . Given this, the influence of Sitra’s own income over upgrading of the national innovation ability when Sitra boosts starts-up to engage in innovation activities is always a concern remaining disputable in the Finnish innovation system. 3. Boosting of Balance in Regional Development and R&D Activities In order to fulfill the objectives under Lisbon Treaty and to enable EU to become the most competitive region in the world, European Commission claims technical R&D as one of its main policies. Among other things, under the circumstance that the entire R&D competitiveness upgrading policy is always progressing sluggishly, Finland, a country with a population of 5,300,000, accounting for 1.1% of the population of 27 EU member states, was identified as the country with the No. 1 innovation R&D ability in the world by World Economic Forum in 2005. Therefore, the way in which it promotes innovation R&D policies catches the public eyes. Some studies also found that the close relationship between R&D and regional development policies of Finland resulted in the integration of regional policies and innovation policies, which were separated from each other initially, after 1990[22]. Finland has clearly defined the plan to exploit the domestic natural resources and human resources in a balanced and effective manner after World War II. At the very beginning, it expanded the balance of human resources to low-developed regions, in consideration of the geographical politics, but in turn, it achieved national balanced development by meeting the needs for a welfare society and mitigation of the rural-urban divide as time went by. The Finnish innovation policies which may resort to technical policies retroactively initially drove the R&D in the manners including upgrading of education degree, founding of Science and Technology Policy Council and Sitra, establishment of Academy of Finland (1970) and establishment of the technical policy scheme, et al.. Among other things, people saw the role played by Sitra in Finland’s knowledge-intensive society policy again. From 1991 to 1995, the Finnish Government officially included the regional competitiveness into the important policies. The National Industrial Policy for Finland in 1993 adopted the strategy focusing on the development based on competitive strength in the regional industrial communities[23]. Also, some studies indicated that in consideration of Finland’s poor financial and natural resources, its national innovation system should concentrate the resources on the R&D objectives which meet the requirements about scale and essence. Therefore, the “Social Innovation, Social and Economic Energy Re-building Learning Society” program boosted by Sitra as the primary promoter in 2002 defined the social innovation as “the reform and action plan to enhance the regulations of social functions (law and administration), politics and organizational structure”, namely reform of the mentality and cultural ability via social structural changes that results in social economic changes ultimately. Notwithstanding, the productivity innovation activity still relies on the interaction between the enterprises and society. Irrelevant with the Finnish Government’s powerful direction in technical R&D activities, in fact, more than two-thirds (69.1%) of the R&D investment was launched by private enterprises and even one-thirds launched by a single enterprise (i.e., Nokia) in Finland. At the very beginning of 2000, due to the impact of globalization to Finland’s innovation and regional policies, a lot of R&D activities were emigrated to the territories outside Finland[24]. Multiple disadvantageous factors initiated the launch of national resources to R&D again. The most successful example about the integration of regional and innovation policies in Finland is the Centres of Expertise Programme (CEP) boosted by it as of 1990. Until 1994, there have been 22 centres of expertise distributed throughout Finland. The centres were dedicated to integrating local universities, research institutions and enterprise for co-growth. The program to be implemented from 2007 to 2013 planned 21 centres of expertise (13 groups), aiming to promote the corporate sectors’ cooperation and innovation activities. CEP integrated local, regional and national resources and then focused on the businesses designated to be developed[25]. [1] Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [2] Jari Hyvärinen & Anna-Maija Rautiainen, Measuring additionality and systemic impacts of public research and development funding – the case of TEKES, FINLAND, RESEARCH EVALUATION, 16(3), 205, 208 (2007). [3] id. at 206-214. [4] Charles Edquist, Tterttu Luukkonen & Markku Sotarauta, Broad-Based Innovation Policy, in EVALUATION OF THE FINNISH NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM – FULL REPORT 11, 25 (Reinhilde Veugelers st al. eds., 2009). [5] id. [6] id. [7] Finnvera is a company specialized in funding Start-Ups, and its business lines include loaning, guarantee, venture capital investment and export credit guarantee, etc. It is a state-run enterprise and Export Credit Agency (ECA) in Finland. Finnvera, http://annualreport2012.finnvera.fi/en/about-finnvera/finnvera-in-brief/ (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [8] Markku Maula, Gordon Murray & Mikko Jääskeläinen, MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, Public Financing of Young Innovation Companies in Finland 32 (2006). [9] id. at 33. [10] id. at 41. [11] Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [12] Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [13] The other two were engaged in boosting the regional R&D center and industrial-academy cooperative center programs. Please see Gabriela von Blankenfeld-Enkvist, Malin Brännback, Riitta Söderlund & Marin Petrov, ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT [OECD],OECD Case Study on Innovation: The Finnish Biotechnology Innovation System 15 (2004). [14] id. at20. [15] DIILI service provides sales expertise for SMEs, Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en/articles/2005/diili-service-provides-sales-expertise-smes-0 (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [16] Maula, Murray & Jääskeläinen, supra note 8 at 41-42. [17] Corporate investments, Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en/corporate-investments (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [18] Fund investments, Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en/fund-investments (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [19] The venture capital funds referred to herein mean the pooled investment made by the owners of venture capital, while whether it exists in the form of fund or others is not discussed herein. [20] Project funding, Sitra, http://www.sitra.fi/en/project-funding (last visited Mar. 10, 2013). [21] Maula, Murray & Jääskeläinen, supra note 8 at 42. [22] Jussi S. Jauhiainen, Regional and Innovation Policies in Finland – Towards Convergence and/or Mismatch? REGIONAL STUDIES, 42(7), 1031, 1032-1033 (2008). [23] id. at 1036. [24] id. at 1038. [25] id. at 1038-1039.
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Scientific Research Legal System and Response Thereto (1) – For Example, The Finnish Innovation Fund (“SITRA”)
- The Demand of Intellectual Property Management for Taiwanese Enterprises
- Blockchain in Intellectual Property Protection
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System
- Recent Federal Decisions and Emerging Trends in U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act Litigation
- The effective and innovative way to use the spectrum: focus on the development of the "interleaved/white space"
- Copyright Ownership for Outputs by Artificial Intelligence
- Impact of Government Organizational Reform to Research Legal System and Response Thereto (2) – Observation of the Swiss Research Innovation System