本研究主要欲探討在目前強調知識經濟、創意至上的時代，獨立發明人發揮其創意，做出各式各樣的發明物品，並將之商品化，推廣至市場之中，創造出可觀的經濟價值。利用問卷調查方式，從中瞭解獨立發明人之基本資料、特質，創新歷程、商品化經驗；同時藉由與發明人面對面的訪談，深入探究獨立發明人發明商品化的寶貴經驗；再加上實證模型的分析結果，從中瞭解影響發明人商品化績效的主要因素所在。而後將上述三部分所得到的結果，相互呼應、歸納，使本研究所要討論的主題，更為完備、清晰。
本研究於經濟部智慧財產局主辦之2006年「台北國際發明暨技術交易展覽會」中，進行實地的問卷調查，除了當場與發明人進行訪談外，亦蒐集了最初級、有效的獨立發明人的基本資料與相關發明商品化問題之感受的調查結果。在悉心整理問卷統計結果後，針對五名擁有豐富發明商品化經驗之獨立發明人，做深入的訪談。主要目的在瞭解獨立發明人的發明歷程與其在進行發明商品化過程中所遇到之難題與解決方法，以及受訪者們對其他獨立發明人在發明商品化過程中，必須事先瞭解、多加注意的細節之種種建議。
從研究調查中，清楚的顯示興趣是延續發明熱情的原動力，因此，發明人之所以成為發明人的動機，最主要的就是對研發活動有著高度的興趣，支持著發明人一連串的創新發明歷程。對發明人而言，可稱之為成功的商品化之定義者，在調查中顯示：商品化的產品能夠上市、獲得一定比例的投資報酬率兩者，是獨立發明人最為重視的。而市場對產品的認識不足和發明人的產品行銷策略不吸引人，是消費者對產品接受度低的主因；相反地，新穎少見又具實用性的產品以及可大量生產具規模經濟而價格低廉的產品，較受消費者與市場的青睞。
進一步探究影響發明人商品化績效因素與銷售收入表現，利用實證模型的分析可發現：獨立發明人在創新發明的經驗上越是豐富，嘗試商品化的經驗上也就更加豐碩，專利商品化的次數也逐漸累積，對於創新發明的領域便越得心應手。故此，在發明商品化的績效上因而有越來越好的表現。在專利的取得上，相較於國內，國外專利權的申請是較為不易的，審慎、嚴謹的程度在台灣之上，取得國外的專利無疑地是給予發明人的發明一項肯定，對發明商品化的績效益處頗大。
再將實證結果輔以深度訪談的內容，我們可以得知，申請專利、尋求發明商品化必須的設備與原料是可以在進入發明商品化之前，事先做好規劃再循序漸進地進行；而發明人心態的改善與自身對商品化流程之各項知識的提升，對尋求授權與合作對象是不可或缺的重點；仿冒者的威脅是激勵獨立發明人精益求精、改良商品的推力，也是市場對原發明人產品的接受度提高的象徵。而發明人為了讓自己的發明在市場上的接受度更加提升，實際的與顧客有所交流，瞭解市場需求是必要的，而非如同過往的閉門造車。同時，為了讓台灣的發明環境更加友善，讓發明人無後顧之憂地進行發明、創新與商品化，政府提升仲裁仿冒與保護發明人權益的各項政策，可謂刻不容緩。

The following research mainly aim to discuss the considerable economic value generated by independent inventors nowadays, in which the importance of the knowledge economy and imagination are emphasized, by displaying their creativity and releasing their commercialized products into the market. After taking questionnaire and surveys, we appreciated the inventors’ basic profiles, their special characteristics, innovation courses and experiences in commercializing their inventions. Also by taking face-to-face interviews with inventors, we thoroughly acquired valuable experiences in commercialization marketing. In addition to the results from theoretical models’ analysis, we were able to understand the primary factors that affected the inventors’ achievements in the market.
At Taipei International Invention Show and Technomart 2006, a survey was conducted, gathering not only inventors’ primary, effective and basic data, but also their opinion in the commercialization of their products. Moreover, in-depth interviews were managed by aiming at five most experienced inventors in the market. The main goal was to understand the concept of commercialization process, the difficulties the inventors confronted and the precaution, as well as advices, needed in the phase.
The research results show that, having great interest in developing new ideas stimulates inventor’s progressive innovation. To release their products in the market, and to obtain an expected proportion of the investment’s reward rate are the decisive indicators of independent inventors’ achievements. The market’s insufficiency in product recognition and the lack of attractive promotions are the main factors of low acceptance in the market. On the contrary, innovating and practical products, with mass productions and low prices, can relatively appeal to the consumers and the market.
By using theoretical models for analysis, it comes clear that: The more experienced is an independent inventor in innovating inventions, the more experienced he/she will be in commercializing them, and therefore the more patents he/she will accumulate. Furthermore, it becomes easier for him to handle the entire commercialization phase; and thus, more accomplishments will be performed.. Nevertheless, inventions that are granted international patents not only mean an acknowledgment of the inventor’s achievements, but also bring profitable benefits to the commercialization market. Using theoretical results together with contents of in-depth interviews, we may see that patent applications and the quest of invention commercialization require the gathering of sources in advance, and methodically. An essential knowledge of the product and its commercialization process are the indispensable keys for attracting manufacturers, investors and potential users. The threat of counterfeit is the inventor’s motivation to strive for perfection and innovation. It also symbolizes the market’s highly acceptance of the original invention. In order to increase the popularity of their, products, inventors must besides exchanging ideas with the consumers, also understand the market’s demands. At the same time, the government must strengthen every related policy to protect the inventor’s right and to strike over counterfeits in the future.

中文書籍與文獻：
1. 智慧財產局，2005.12，認識專利，經濟部智財局。
2. 高橋昌義，1997.8，創意點子賺錢法，方智出版。
3. 王永銘，2002，從智財權到高新產業，國科會科學技術資料中心政策研究組。
4. 王清勇，2002，專利商品化--企業實戰經驗分享，智慧財產局2002年專利研討會。
5. 林炳宏，2006，研發創新與發明商品化，拓腦育成創投中心。
6. 林炳宏，2006，構想商品化實務（可行性評估），拓腦育成創投中心。
7. 汪青河，1991，創業家創業行為與環境、個人特徵關係之研究，國立台灣大學商學院，碩士論文。
8. 張金山，1991，創業行為與成就動機、家族背景之相關性研究，國立台灣大學商學院，碩士論文。
9. 陳景堂，2004，統計分析SPSS for Windows入門與應用，儒林出版社。
10. 陳芳龍，1988.4，向創業挑戰的人—創業楷模成功因素分析，現代管理月刊。
11. 陳昭儀,1990，台灣獨立發明人的現況與商品化困難之研究，國立師範大學，碩士論文。
12. 陳昭儀，1990，我國傑出發明家的生涯路，台北：心理。
13. 陳麗昭,2000，台灣獨立發明人專利商品化面臨困難之研究，國立雲林科技大學，碩士論文。
14. 黃秉鈞、葉忠福，2005.2，創新管理--創意發明與專利保護實務，揚智出版社。
15. 黃經堯，2006，科技專利取得與攻防，交通大學電子工程系。
16. 劉常勇，2002，技術商品化模式與成功關鍵，智慧財產局2002年專利研討會。
17. 劉常勇，2002，創業管理的12堂課，天下文化。
18. 劉友菁，2006，發明人為主企業化及專業研發廠商之可行性分析，中央大學產經所，碩士論文。
19. 歐建益，2001，創業家特質、動機與創業問題之研究，國立台灣大學會研所，碩士論文。
20. 廖和信，2003.10，專利，就是科技競爭力，天下文化。
21. 彭鑒托, 95.10. 13，專利泡沫化之危機意識, 新新季刊,中山科學研究院。
22. 羅勃特.奈爾生，1990.5，作一個創意人，中國生產力中心。
23. 凱文.瑞維特；大衛.克萊，2000.6，閣樓上的林布蘭-智慧財產e時代爆炸致富法則，經典傳訊。
24. 創意變黃金衝破千分之三機會，2006，遠見雜誌三月號，p164-p180。
25. 「2006年世界智慧財產權日」座談會，創意靈感才能，打造台灣新藍圖，經濟日報，2006-04-26。
26. 世界經濟論壇，2006-2007年全球競爭力報告，台灣新經濟簡訊第71期，2006.10。
27. John Howkins，2003.10，創意經濟--好點子變成好生意，典藏出版社。
外文書籍與文獻：
1. Booz, Allen and Hamiltom,1981,Management of New Products, New York.
2. CIIC/W. 1996, Annual review, Canadian Industrial Innovation Centre, Waterloo, Canada.
3. Jewkes, John; Sawers, David and Stillerman, Richard. 1959, The Sources of Invention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
4. Schumpeter J.A.,1934, History of Economic Analysis,NY:Oxford University.
5. Schumpeter J.A.,1939, Business Cycles. 2 vols. NY: McGraw Hill.
6. USPTO. 1997, All technologies report, January 1963--December 1996. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington DC, March.
7. Baumol, W.J.,”Entrepreneurs in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review ,1968, Vol.58(2), pp.64-71.
8. Baumol, W.J., “Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Growth: The David-Goliath Symbiosis”, New York University, 2002.
9. Baumol, W.J., “Towards Microeconomics of Innovation: Growth Engine Hallmark of Market Economics,” AEJ , Vol.30, No.1. 2002, pp.1-12.
10. Baumol, W.J.,”The Free-Market Innovation Machine:Analyzing the Capitalist Growth Miracle”, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
11. Baumol, W.J.,”Return of the Invisible Men: The Microeconomic Value Theory of Inventors and Entrepreneurship.” Manuscriot New York: New York University, 2005.
12. Benz, Mathhias,”Entrepreneurship as a Non-Profit-Seeking Activity.” Working Paper 243. 2005, Zurich: University of Zurich.
13. Benz, Mathhias, Frey and Bruno S.,”The Value of Autonomy: Evidence of the Self-Employed in 23 Countries.” Working Paper 173, 2003, Zurich: University of Zurich.
14. Busenitz, L. W., and Barney, J.B.,”Differences between Entrepreneurs and Managers in Large Organizations: Biasces and Heuristics in Strategic Decision-making,” Journal of Business Venturing, 1997, Vol.12(1), pp.9-30.
15. Brenda, L. R. and A. B. David,”Controlling New Product Development in The Small Technology-Base Firm,” American Journal of Small Business,1987, Vol.6, pp.37-50.
16. Cohen, W., and J. Levin , “Empirtical Studies of Invention and Market Structure.” In Handbook of Industrial Organization, ed R. Schmalensee and R.D. Willig, 2,1989, pp.1059-1107. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers, B.V.
17. Cooper, A.C., Woo, C.Y.and Dunkelberg, W.C.,”Enterpreneurs’ Perceived Chance of Success,” Journal of Business Venturing, 1988, Vol.3(3), pp.97-108.
18. Cooper, R.G.,”Why New Industrial Product Fail,” Industrial Marketing Management, 1975, Vol.4, pp.315-326.
19. Cooper, R.G.,”Identifying Industrial New Product Success: Product New Prod.,” Industrial Marketing Management, 1979, Vol.8, pp.124-135.
20. Denyse L. Dagenais, Louis Seguin-Dulude and Claude Desranleau,”Analysis of Individual Canadian Inventor Behavior.” Technovation, 1991, Vol.11(6), pp.357-372.
21. Erickson, G.S.,”Environment and Innovation: The Case of the Small Entity,” Industry Marketing Management, 1996, Vol.25, pp.577-587.
22. Fery, B.S. and Benz, M.”Being Independent is a Great Thing: Subjective Evaluations of Self-Employment and Hierarchy,” CESifo Working Paper Series 959; Zurich IEER Working Paper No. 135, 2003.
23. Gallini, N.T., “Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing,” American Economic Review ,Vol.74, pp.931-941.
24. Gallini, N.T and R.Winter, “Licensing in the Theory of Innovation”, The Rand Journal of Economics,Vol.16, pp.237-252.
25. Griffin, D.,and Tversky,A.,”The Weighing of Evidence and the Determinants of Confidence,” Cognitive Psycholog, 1992, Vol.24, pp.411-435.
26. Gilman, J.J.,”Risk Was His Friend: Edison’s Legacy to Innovation Process,” Research Technology Management, 1995, July-August, pp.8-9.
27. Gerld G.,Udell, Kenneth G., Baker, Gerld S. Albaum,”Creativity: Necessary, but Not Sufficient.” The Journal of Creative Behavior,1976.10(2), pp.92-103.
28. Hisrich, Robert,D. “The Inventor: A Potential Source for New Products” ,The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Vol. 24, No.1, Winter 1985/86, pp.67-80.
29. Henard D.H. and Szymanski D.M.,”Why some new products are more successful than others,” Journal of Marketing Research,2001, Vol.38, No.8, pp.362-375.
30. Hamiltom, B.,”Does Entrepreneurship pay? An Empirical Analysis of the Returns to Self-Employment,” Journal of Political Economy, 2000, Vol.108(3), pp.604-631.
31. Hoelzl, Erik, Rustichini and Aldo,“Overconfident: Do You Put Your Money on It?” Ecomoinc Journal, 2005, Vol.115(503), pp.305-318.
32. Jovanovic, Boyan,”Selection and the Evolution of Industry.” Econometrica,1982, Vol.50(3), pp.649-670.
33. Joseph G. Eisenhauer,”The Entrepreneurial Decision: Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence”, Baylor University,1995, pp.67-77.
34. Katz, J. ”Intentions, hurdles, and start-ups: An analysis of entrepreneurial follow-through.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practices, 13(4),1989, pp.429-441.
35. Kaiser, HF and Rice, J., "Little Jiffy, Mark IV," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1974, Vol.34, pp.111 -117.
36. Lamoreaux and Sokoloff,” Inventive Activity and the Market for Technology in the United States, 1840-1920, NBER,1999.
37. Mansfield, E.,“Industrial Research and Technological Innovation—An econometric analysis,” NY: W.W. Norton, 1968.
38. Mansfield, E.,“Academic Research and Industrial innovation,”Research Policy, Vol.20, 1991, pp.1-12.
39. Mansfield, E.,”Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study,” Management Science,1986, Vol.32(2), pp.173-181.
40. Milnamow, J.,”The Patent System,” APLA Quart. J., 1982, Vol.10, pp.71-80.
41. Moore, Don A., Cain and Daylian M.,”Strategic Myopia and Entrepreneurial Entry: An Experimental Approach.” 2004,Manuscript. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
42. Moskowitz, Tobias, Vissing-Jorgensen and Annette,”The Returns to Entrepreneurial Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle?” American Economic Review, 2002, Vol.92(4), pp.745-778.
43. Nelson R.,”Institution Supporting Technical Change in The U.S.” Technical Change and Economic Theory,1988, London and New York, pp.312-326.
44. N Rosenberg,” On Technological Expectations”, The Economic Journal, 1976, Vol.86, pp.523-525.
45. Nancy Bowman, Upton, Samuel L. Seaman and Donald L. Sexton,”Innovation Evaluation Program: Do They Help The Inventor?” Journal of Small Business management, 1989, pp.23-30.
46. Peter Nijkamp ,” Information Center Policy in a Spatial Development Perspective”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.37, No.1 1988, pp.173-193.
47. Peter Whalley,”The Social Practice of Independent Inventing.” Science, Technology & Human Value, 1991, Vol.16, pp.208-232.
48. Parsons, Andrew J.,” Building Innovativeness in Large U.S. Corporations.”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1992, pp.35-50.
49. P Kotler,” Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control”,Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1976.
50. Parker, Gerald G, Udell and Blades,“ The New Independent Inventor: Implications for Corporate Policy”, Review of Business, Vol.17, No.3, Spring 1996, pp.7-11.
51. Rosenberg, Nathan,”Perspectives on Technology”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
52. Robertson, Andrew “Characteristics of Successful Inventor: Some Notes o n the Nature of Creativity and Creative Mind,” Technovation, No.2, 1984, pp.141-145.
53. Reynolds P.D. and Miller B.,”New Firm Gestation: Conception, Brith and Implications for Research,” Journal of Business Venturing, 1992, Vol.7, pp.405-417.
54. Rivette, K., Klein, D.,”Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents,” Harvard Business School Press, 2000, Boston, MA, .
55. Root-Bernstein, Robert S. “Who Discovers and Invents”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 32, No.1, Jan/Feb 1989, pp.36-42.
56. RH Brockhaus Sr,” Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs, The Academy of Management Journal, 1980, Vol.23, No.3, pp.509-520.
57. Scherer, F.M., ”Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance”, Chicago, IL: Rand Mcnally, 1970, p.56.
58. Schiller P.,”Industry Clustering for Economic Development,” Economic Eveloment Review, 1994, Vol.12, Iss13, pp.26-37.
59. Shane S. and Kolvereid L.,“National Evironment Strategy and New Venture Performance: A Three Country Study,” Journal of Small Business Management, 1995, Apr, pp.37-50.
60. Sirilli, George “Patent and Inventors: An empirical Study,” Research Polocy, No.16, 1987, pp.157-174.
61. Scherer, F. M.” Firm size, Market structure, Opportunity, and the Output of Patent Inventions.” American Economic Review,55,1965, pp.1097-1123.
62. Scherer, F. M. “The Size Distribution of Profits from Innovation.” Discussion Paper No.96-13, Zentrum fur Europaishe Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH, Germany,1996.
63. Scherer, F. M.”Research and Development Expenditures and Patenting,” APLA Quart. J., 1982, Vol.10, pp.60-70.
64. Stephen M. Maurer, Suzanne Scotchmer, “The Indepentdent-Invention Defense in Intellellectual Property,” NBER,Forthcoming Economica,2002.
65. Schultz,”The Value of Ability to Deal with Disequilibria,” Journal of Economic Literature,1975, pp.817-846.
66. Thomas