科技的進步日新月異，各產業也隨著科技發展不斷調整商業模式。2008年全球金融海嘯大規模衝擊政府監管的傳統金融業者，與此同時，以資訊科技提供新型金融服務的新創公司開始在世界各地湧現，金融科技(fintech)一詞躍然成為各方焦點，而全球金融科技專利的申請數量也隨之攀升，在2006年至2012年間，我國金融科技專利申請數量成長逾1倍之多，這快速興起的金融科技業者們申請專利保護的目的為何值得探究。回顧過往專利申請動機相關文獻，皆是探討硬體與實體產品相關產業，且專利申請動機大多以「保護技術不被模仿」為主，但在軟體服務與流程創新為主的金融科技產業裡，其專利申請動機與目的是否與其他硬體製造產業有所不同？有鑑於此，本研究針對各國與各產業之專利申請動機相關文獻，初步整理專利申請動機中之重要因素，並透過層級分析法(analytic hierarchy process, AHP)來了解我國金融科技公司專利申請的主要動機及其重要性排序。
首先藉由文獻回顧與專家訪談初步建構衡量我國金融科技業者專利申請動機之層級結構，其中包含「防禦動機」、「名譽動機」、「激勵動機」及「商業策略動機」四大構面，共計13項評估指標，接著邀請專家進行問卷前測，通過一致性檢定後藉由發放專家問卷收集金融科技業者們之專利申請動機，分析出專利申請動機重要性排序後，再透過文獻與專家訪談解讀各排序背後之意涵。
研究結果發現，金融科技業者專利申請動機中最重要的構面是「商業策略動機」；其次則是「防禦動機」，而「名譽動機」與「激勵動機」兩構面之重要性則相對較低。若以13項評估指標綜合排序來看，則以商業策略動機構面下的「提升談判地位」、「獲得投資機會」以及防禦動機構面下的「保護技術不被模仿」最為重要。本研究所得之專利申請動機重要性排序結果與專家訪談之回饋，可提供金融科技業者在面臨專利申請與策略布局決策時重要之參考資訊。

Since the technology is moving so fast, the companies need to modify their business model continually. In 2008, the global financial crisis impacted the traditional financial industry which had strict government regulation. At the same time, the start-up financial service company with information technology established quickly around the world. The term "Fintech" suddenly became the spotlight in this industry. Moreover, the numbers of global Fintech patent applications were growing increasingly. From 2006 to 2012, in Taiwan, Fintech patent applications had increased more than one time. I cannot help but wonder, what is the purpose of the patent application? However, in related literature, all the studies discussed the hardware or physical production industry, the motivation of applying patent mostly is “Protection from imitation.” But, in Fintech industry which mainly on software service and process innovation, regarding patent application motivation and purpose, is there difference from other hardware production industry? For this reason, this study has reviewed the related literatures of patenting motivation and Fintech's expert questionnaire, analyzed the important factors of patenting motivation in Fintech industry by way of analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
Analytic hierarchy process was used throughout this research, analyzed the importance of patenting application motivation and the ranking for Fintech industry in Taiwan. First, for Taiwan Fintech industry, patenting motivation hierarchal architecture was built in this research by way of literature reviews and expert interviews. The hierarchal architecture includes four sections: “Defense Motivation,” “Reputation Motivation,” “Incentive Motivation” and “Business Strategy Motivation,” a total of thirteen evaluation indicators. Next, invited experts filled out the pre-test questionnaires, and official questionnaires were distributed to Fintech experts after passing through the consistent tests. After analyzing the importance of patenting application motivation and the ranking, it revealed the meaning of those ranking from literature and the interviews with experts.
The result shows that the most important section is “Business Strategy Motivation,” following by “Defense Motivation,” “Reputation Motivation” and “Incentive Motivation.” Regarding the thirteen indicators, the most important ones on top three in orders are “Enhance the negotiation position,” “Access to VC or other investment opportunities” and “Protection from imitation.” When Fintech companies face on patent applications and strategic decisions, the result of patenting motivation importance sorting and the feedback of experts in this research should provide them with a valuable reference.

ACCENTURE. (2016). Fintech and the evolving landscape: landing points for the industry. Retrieved from http://fintechinnovationlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Fintech_Evolving_Landscape_2016.pdf
Arner, D. W., Barberis, J. N., & Buckley, R. P. (2015). The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm?
Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655-672. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.002
Blind, K., & Thumm, N. (2004). Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy, 33(10), 1583-1598. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.08.007
Cohen, W., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & P.Walsh, J. (2002). R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31, 1349-1367.
Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sun, J. (2003). Business research methods.
Dimon, J. (2015). JPMorgan Chase & Co. Annual Report 2014. Retrieved from http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ONE/15660259x0x820077/8af78e45-1d81-4363-931c-439d04312ebc/JPMC-AR2014-LetterToShareholders.pdf
Duguet, E., & Kabla, I. (1998). Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system in France an econometric analysis at the firm level. The Economics and Econometrics of Innovation, 267-305.
FinTechWeekly. (2015). FINTECH DEFINITION. Retrieved from https://www.fintechweekly.com/fintech-definition
Harabi, N. (1995). Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis. Research Policy, 24, 981-992.
King, B. (2012). Bank 3.0: Why Banking Is No Longer Somewhere You Go But Something You Do: Wiley.
McManus, B. (2016). What is FinTech? Retrieved from http://www.whartonfintech.org/blog-archive/2016/2/16/what-is-fintech
NDCR. (2016). NDRC FinTech. Retrieved from http://www.ndrc.ie/fintech/
PwC. (2016). Blurred lines: How FinTech is shaping Financial Services. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.ru/en/banking/publications/fintech-global-report-eng.pdf
Relecura. (2015). Relecura IP Intelligence Report - Fintech an IP perspective. Retrieved from https://www.relecura.com/reports/FinTech_an_IP_perspective.pdf
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchial process. New York: McGrawl-Hill. Google Scholar.
Skinner, C. (2015). What is ‘fintech’? Retrieved from http://thefinanser.com/2015/01/ghgh.html/
WEF. (2015). The Future of Financial Services - How disruptive innovations are reshaping the way financial services are structured, provisioned and consumed. Retrieved from
Wilton, A. d. (2011). Patent Value: A Business Perspective for Technology Startups. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(3), 5.
Wind, Y., & Saaty., T. L. (1986). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641-658.
日経コンピュータ. (2016). FinTech革命 : 金融科技完全解析 (金. 汪平, 皇甫彥帝, Trans.): 遠見出版.
王紹宇. (2016). 智能理財技術崛起對美國及台灣財富管理產業的衝擊. (碩士), 國立臺灣大學, 台北市.
王鈺婷. (2008). 探究零售商發展私有品牌的策略動機因素. (碩士), 國立高雄第一科技大學, 高雄市.
朱志宣, & 李智明. (2016). 物流業導入二維條碼系統之關鍵因素-以 AHP 方法評估. 科際整合管理研討會, 546-561.
池仁勇, & 孫浩. (2011). 不同專利申請動機下企業R＆D效率研究. 技術經濟, 8, 7-10.
吳萬益. (2011). 企業研究方法, 四版, 台北: 華泰.
周延鵬. (2016). Fintech開放式創新－從專利佈局交易與企業併購談起. 金總服務雙月刊, 6-21.
金融科技創新基地. (2016). 金融科技定義. Retrieved from http://fintechbase.com.tw/tw/innovation-and-entrepreneurship.html
金融監督管理委員會. (2015). 資訊服務業及金融科技業為經主管機關認定之金融相關事業規定.
金融監督管理委員會. (2016). 金融科技發展策略白皮書.
侯媛媛, 劉雲, & 譚龍. (2012). 企業專利申請動機及其影響因素. 技術經濟, 11, 44-49.
柴易清. (2016). 金融科技創新策略之研究－以T銀行行動支付為例. (碩士), 國立臺灣科技大學, 台北市.
殷加寶. (2015). 消費者持有信用卡動機之探討. (碩士), 東吳大學, 台北市.
張秀蓮. (2016). 運用AHP探討流行服飾開發業者關鍵成功因素. (碩士), 國立臺北科技大學, 台北市.
梅驊. (2016). 全球 P2P 網路借貸現況與台灣發展趨勢探討. (碩士), 國立臺灣科技大學, 台北市.
許筱旋. (2016). FinTech對金融業之影響：以保險業為例. (碩士), 國立臺灣科技大學, 台北市.
陳國明. (2012). 以層級分析法建構供應商評選模式-以新竹網通公司為例. (碩士), 國立交通大學, 新竹市.
程凱. (2016). 影響群眾募資成功可能性的因素. (碩士), 國立臺灣師範大學, 台北市.
黃子維. (2016). 以AHP層級分析法探討製程安全管理關鍵因素-以石化產業為例. (碩士), 國立成功大學, 台南市.
榮泰生. (2011). Expert Choice 在分析層級程序法 (AHP) 之應用: 五南.
劉隆穎. (2016). 以專利分析方法分析我國金融科技之專利技術佈局. (碩士), 國立政治大學, 台北市.
蔡函霓. (2016). 金融科技之專利分析-以台灣地區為例. (博士), 國立臺北科技大學, 台北市.
蔡茜堉. (2016). FinTech專利前瞻趨勢與挑戰 金融科技專利現況.
鄧振源, & 曾國雄. (1989). 層級分析法(AHP) 的內涵特性與應用(上). 中國統計學報, 27(6), 13707-13724.
鄭意婷. (2016). 以期望理論觀點探討專利期望價值、專利申請動機與專利組合布局之間的關係. (碩士), 國立屏東科技大學, 屏東縣.