Trends in the global market for the transfer of intellectual property

. The article is aimed at conducting a comprehensive study of opportunities and prospects of development of methodology and practice of organization of innovation processes in the economies of various countries, development of recommendations to increase the efficiency of innovation activity.The relevance of this topic is due to the need to create effective mechanisms of expert and analytical support of a high level of innovation development, the importance of providing measures to support technologies - «catalysts» socio-economic development of economic agents, the key role of technology transfer as a condition for ensuring and maintaining innovative activity of economic agents. Keywords


Introduction
«Technology» is «a set of knowledge about the ways and means of implementing the processes in which the qualitative change of the object occurs»; «a set of tools, processes, operations, methods, techniques, operating mode» [1]; or «objectively expressed result of scientific and technical activity, which includes in one way or another combination of inventions, useful models, industrial samples, computer programs...» [2]; in this case, the key feature of technology (in addition to having «knowledge as an intellectual product») is turnover (i.e. the possibility of being transferred); this topic implies on the one hand the existence of rights, and on the other -the material carrier in which (on which) it is expressed [3].
The objects of the transfer, therefore, are: firstly, the rights to the protected intellectual property results, and secondly, the material carriers, in (on) which they are expressed.
Innovative technologies have another fundamental difference from traditional ones: they are «sets of methods and means that support the stages of innovation implementation», their ultimate goal is to bring innovation to the market.
The process of creating (innovative) technology includes: 1) creating (non-negotiable) intellectual property results (intangible object) and ensuring its legal protection.The rights to the created intellectual property results and the tangible medium, in which it is expressed, but not the intellectual property results itself; 2) to create an innovative product, transform intangible objects (IP) into material and their placing on the commodity market can pass from one to another.The interpretation of technology as an object of transfer implies the obligatory registration of rights (developer, creator, author) on it, and further: a) entry into the market with intellectual property and/or b) entry with the material carriers in which it is expressed.

Materials and methods
In the framework of the article, the authors performed an extensive analysis of the literature, industry resources of the Internet, conducted expert surveys and brainstorming in order to develop the parameters of the model of assessment and analysis of the transfer of intellectual property at various levels (macro, sectoral, micro).

Discussing
The world technology transfer market and intellectual property transfer volumes were estimated at hundreds of billion U.S. dollars as of 2019.The analysis of official statistics on exports and imports of technologies for 2015-2019, given in the paper [1], led to the following conclusions: − Exports of technology to the US (with technological leadership) are 1.5 times higher than their imports (and this trend has not changed in the period under review); − The volume of technology exports to the Russian Federation is lower than the volume of their imports in the same 1.5 times (and this trend is also constant); − US technology imports are 35 times higher than in the Russian Federation; US technology exports are 100 times higher than in the Russian Federation.
The data seems to be sufficient to draw conclusions about the possibilities of an intercountry comparison between a technology leader country (US) and a country that belongs to the group of technology outsiders for the most part.
Another reason for cross-country comparison is the number of international patent applications submitted under the PCT procedure; here too the ratio is not in favor of the Russian Federation: the share of applications submitted by domestic developers is 0.4% of the total (analysis years 2015-2019), the same figure for the US is 21.2% [2].
It has been hypothesized that the Russian Federation's significant underperformance in terms of technology exports/imports may be a consequence of the low efficiency of knowledge dissemination and use; the Global Innovation Index (GII) indicator reflects the ratio of innovation results and resources (in points) and gives the basis for the conclusion about the effectiveness of innovative development by countries: the leading positions have Germany, Switzerland, the US, then -China, Malaysia and other fast-growing countries of Asia.In the period 2013-2019, the Russian Federation moved from 62nd to 45th place, but lags behind developed countries in a number of indicators characterizing the state of the resource base of innovation (43rd place) and their performance (51st).This situation in general seems to be a consequence of setting various kinds of targets for «resources of innovations» (representatives of the scientific community), increasing entrepreneurial activity, incl. in the sphere of innovative entrepreneurship, etc.
Further, the volume of investment in intellectual property as a percentage of the gross capital formation of the Russian Federation is not among the leading countries (analysis for the same period 2015-2019) [1]; Ireland (36%) is the best performer Switzerland (29.5%), Sweden (27%), the United States (26%), France (25%) and Denmark (24%).Fig. 1.The volume of investment in intellectual property as a percentage of the gross capital formation [1].
Even more interesting are the conclusions about the share of investment in intangible assets in relation to the total amount of investment: according to the TOP-500 world leaders in terms of revenue.The investment rate in intangible assets in their budgets reaches 94%.Belgian companies show a particularly high share of intangible assets in the capital structure -30%.Further -enterprises of France, Italy, Great Britain, Germany; intangible assets shares in their total assets are 21.5-28.2%.

Fig. 2.
The share of investment in intangible assets in relation to the total amount of investment [1].
The interest in the problems of innovation development, the development of the legal and economic culture of intellectual property use and, in particular, the implementation of technology transfer mechanisms has been taking place in the USA for more than 40 years and at the initial phase (until the 1980s) was due to the following reasons: Actually technology transfer is in the US (both at that time and nowadays) without exaggeration «national idea», and the state policy in the technology transfer part includes: «priority of development of scientific achievements for their introduction into industry»; «the production of high-cost technologies -market leaders»; «the use of decentralization strategy, lack of regulation from the center and strict decision-making links»; «the possibility of free development of creative initiative of companies in the high-tech industry sector of the USA»; «priority of scientific institutions in supporting the education system», as well as related and concretizing provisions.
Currently, the central role in public support for innovation in the US is played by: − Direct subsidization of science and innovation business; − Indirect financial support, tax breaks; − Complex public support measures with elements of financial and non-financial incentives.
The US innovation system includes several elements that ensure the active development of R&D [3] − special institutions designed to create networks and internationalize business processes.In the United States, it is the responsibility of the centres of excellence, consulting, marketing and analytical and branding companies.
− «cooperation institutions», which include representatives of local administrations, universities, industrial groups and research institutes; the main task of these entities is to support and coordinate the innovative development of a particular region; − small medium-sized innovative enterprises, joint innovation companies of public and private institutions, individual innovators supported by technology parks, business incubators, venture funds.
− associations -such as the National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer -to engage entrepreneurs and private investors in the innovation sector; or organizations like the Business Higher Education Forum, which develops the necessary solutions for the US government to improve public policy in higher education, innovation climate, meeting the needs of business corporations, etc. [4] In the Russian Federation, according to the Strategic Development Center «Effective Use of Intellectual Property» of WIPO, the share of intangible assets in the total assets of organizations averaged less than 1% during the period under review.
The United States is in the lead in terms of intangible assets volume, followed by China, India (thanks to the market dominance of software development, software) and Switzerland (thanks to the pharmaceutical dominance).The Russian Federation was among the five countries with the largest share of tangible assets, along with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Bulgaria.The reason for this may be the structure of the economy of the Russian Federation (a small share in the GDP of the IT industry, pharmaceuticals and other industries with a high proportion of intangible content); however, there seem to be more significant reasons, some of which were mentioned above.
Further, the following global trend is evident: there is a correlation between activity in terms of intellectual property results protection claims and GDP.
The data for 10 years on the submitted applications for the respective intellectual property results groups (patents, trademarks, industrial designs) were analyzed; the final value, calculated percentages that show a) a significant lag of the FM as absolute, and in terms of relative values of indicators from the US and China; b) a lower (2-3 times) ratio of patent applications to GDP in the Russian compared to other countries.
Analysis of only the presented at once allows to identify, firstly, linear relationship between the selected parameters; secondly, the relative instability of the dynamics of indicators in the Russian Federation compared to the indicators of the United States and China; Third, the increase of these indicators abroad is much greater than in the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the indicator «index of technological specialization» looks optimistic (the ratio of the structure of patent applications of the national country with the global structure); the calculation and analysis of this indicator is carried out by the Higher School of Economics (HSE).According to the presented data, the Russian Federation corresponds to the global level or exceeds it in the branches: microstructural and nanotechnologies and other consumer products, data on this are given in the paper [1].
At the same time, the sphere of technological specialization of the Russian Federation remains relatively unchanged during the period under consideration; new branches of specialization do not become significant in the structure of the Russian economy.Traditionally, the Russian Federation occupies a high position on the level of generation of new knowledge (scientific publications, patents) and their acquisition (import of advanced technologies, acquisition of rights to the results of innovation, industry saturation with scientific personnel)as well as the scale of the R&D sector (which, as already shown, is not a complete basis for an effective technology transfer process).
According to the Global Innovation Index (GII), the Russian Federation ranked 47th in 2020, behind such countries as Bulgaria, Poland, Malta, Ukraine, Romania.This index represents the ratio of resources of innovations (input) and results of innovations (output), which allows to objectively assess the effectiveness of efforts to develop innovations in a country.
The trends that have been identified seem to require comments on the causes of the observed trends.
The analysis of the foreign experience of the technology transfer showed that, firstly, the peculiarities of the organization in a country are determined by the specifics of the design and functioning of its national innovation system; secondly, in all the reviewed countries there are effective mechanisms of the technology transfer, which provides a high scientific and technical potential and innovative ability of the economy.Third, the organization of technology transfer from research organizations to industry is quite complex and relies on an extensive network of intermediary organizations: technology brokers, venture capital firms, technology transfer agencies, etc.Finally, in a number of foreign countries, the State plays an important role in the technology transfer, both as an active participant in the process and as an intermediary in this field.It was concluded that the focus on the tools of solving this issue on the national scale is not only desirable, but also necessary regardless of the characteristics of the «free» technology transfer market.
As evidenced by the analysis of the legislation of foreign countries, a variety of effective innovative administrative and economic mechanisms of technology transfer have been developed and actively used.They are based on a flexible approach to the identification of priority areas of scientific and technological development, the formation of the institutional and legal basis of the state stimulation of the transition to an innovative way of development on the basis of a clearly manifested political will, as well as the establishment of formal criteria for public support for private sector innovation.Tax incentives, concessional lending and accelerated modernization policies play a crucial role in stimulating innovation through indirect government regulation, creation of a favourable innovation climate in the economy and in the innovation infrastructure, etc. [5] The most frequently used tax exemptions are [5]: − de-taxation of R&D returns; − full depreciation of research equipment upon acquisition; − allocation of tax deductible innovative development funds as part of profits; − preferential rates of income tax: for example, for small innovative firms [5].Regarding the current situation in the Russian technology market, a number of important provisions should be outlined.
First, with regard to the volume and quality of domestic developments: attempts to move towards applied science at the corporate level have led to a decentralization of management and partly to funding schemes for research and development.However, such policies have only led to some pockets of success in some industries.This applies to the activities of medium-sized organizations that successfully use competencies developed on the basis of the deposits of previous years.Some advances have been made in the areas of digitalization, biotechnology, composite manufacturing.
Secondly, the situation in the organizations of the military-industrial complex is ambiguous.Significant State resource flows have not led to significant rearmament.It is impossible to disagree that there are no more tractors, tanks and vehicles of Soviet production, but the core of weapons in evolutionary improvements is kept on a Soviet basis at least thirty years ago.«Armata» tank was shown for the first time in 2015 at the Victory Parade in Moscow.But the first 20 T-14 tanks on the basis of heavy tracked platform «Armata» [6] will be handed over to the Armed Forces of Russia by the end of 2021 from the message of Deputy Defense Minister Krivoruchko.More recent information was withheld.
Third, even in the basis of the Russian economy -raw material industries, the orientation towards the use of foreign technologies and equipment has been maintained.First of all, this applies to the new advanced technologies of extraction and primary processing of gas and oil, in which 60-70% of the equipment of foreign production.
Fourthly, Russian science is essentially state science.The vast majority of scientific institutions, experimental equipment and experimental production are State-owned, financed through various forms of State participation.Including competitive, grant, direct.The word «state support» has become magical, and its types and forms are often not specified.
In general, the positive experience of establishing federal and research universities is based entirely on public funding.Despite the fact that the income from admission of students on a paid basis accounts for about 50% of the financing of universities (processed by materials [7]), the main share of the costs of construction, equipment and consumables is accounted for by state sources.
On the basis of the above, it should be concluded that due to the isolation of science from business, the development of technologies in Russia occurs under its own laws without taking into account the specific needs of industrial production.In most cases, the process of commercialization begins as a result of a «happy meeting» of a scientist or engineer -a bearer of some advanced idea -and an entrepreneur able to evaluate and support the idea financially.
The following are the main few advantages of the situation in the Russian technology market.
1. Low levels of technology utilization suggest significant untapped potential in this area.Sufficient resources available, including significant human capacity.In a number of fields of knowledge, Russian scientists remain the world's priority.There are many talented people in Russia -authors of unique technological ideas.
2. Significant potential of the military-industrial complex.The conversion of «military» development into civilian industries has determined the possibility of using in mass production many unique inventions and technologies previously used in the production of military equipment.The process of declassification of inventions is underway, which means the emergence of new interesting technologies in the intellectual property market.There is significant potential in materials science, power plants, nuclear industry, biotechnology.
3. Low cost of scientific development in Russia.There are many examples of leaks of minds and technologies abroad.Regardless of their plausibility, however, it should be noted that due to the underdevelopment of the intellectual property market and the limited knowledge of inventors and scientists about their rights and opportunities in this area, the cost of Russian technologies is far below the world level.One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the low standard of living and wages of domestic scientists.
4. Lack of communication among key technology transfer stakeholders.Successful technology transfer implies strategic cooperation between the state, business and science.The State provides financial measures to support the scientific sector of the economy to solve national problems and creates an innovative infrastructure.Business finances science to solve its technological problems.Scientific organizations, through academic research, can stimulate business innovation, improve competitiveness and contribute to the long-term social development of countries.The commercialization of scientific results is a complex task and depends on the internal process of technology transfer, including the availability of infrastructure, personnel with the necessary competencies and so on.

Conclusions
Summarizing the state and trends of technology transfer in foreign countries, it is necessary to note the following: 1. Firstly, the characteristics of the organization in a country are determined by the design and operation of its national innovation system; 2. Second, effective technology transfer mechanisms are in place in all the countries reviewed, ensuring a high scientific and technological capacity and innovative capacity of the economy, as well as a significant role of the countries reviewed as exporters of hightechnology products [8]; 3. Third, the organization of technology transfer from research organizations to industry is quite complex and relies on an extensive network of intermediary organizations: technology brokers, venture capital firms, technology transfer agencies, etc.This multichannel approach allows the transmitting and receiving party to choose the optimal scheme appropriate to their functioning [8]; 4. Finally, in a number of foreign countries, the State plays an important role in the technology transfer, both as an active participant in the process and as an intermediary in this field.In these countries, innovation and other indicators of innovation performance have multiplied.Therefore, the focus on the tools of solving this issue at the national level is not only desirable, but also necessary regardless of the characteristics of the «free» technology transfer market.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the above material: Secondly, to improve the commercial use of the scientific and technological results of the federal R&D budget.
1. Firstly, the intensification of competition in high technology by foreign

Table 1 .
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 02038 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338102038AQUACULTURE 2022 Directions for improving the efficiency of the transfer of intellectual property.Development of a model and methods for evaluating the impact of changes in the indicators of intangible assets and the results of research and development on the indicators of economic efficiency of economic agents Personnel support of intellectual property transfer Improvement of mechanisms for ensuring intellectual property transfer at the micro-level, incl.the model of competences of the specialist in the field of transfer.