| The development of intellectual property is closely related to the improvement of national scientific and technological strength and innovation capability.At the same time,it is an important part of international competition.In the 21st century,Japan,China,South Korea and other countries in Asia have formulated intellectual property development strategies.After nearly15 years of development,China has made great achievements in the development of intellectual property rights,however,there are also problems,such as weak international competitiveness,weak intellectual property protection and severe trade frictions.Intellectual property policy is of great guiding significance to the future development of intellectual property rights of the country,which needs to be further improved.The evolution research and multi-agent comparison of policies are conducive to the further improvement of policies,as is the case with intellectual property policies.Looking at the research results at home and abroad,the current policy research methods tend to combine quantitative and qualitative.However,the existing research has not paid attention to the evolution characteristics of foreign intellectual property policy texts,and the multi-agent comparative study based on the policy text itself has not been effectively covered.In addition,in terms of research dimensions,the existing research focuses on the volume of documents issued,the departments where documents are issued,and policy topics,and does not pay enough attention to the amount of policy implementation and policy implementation departments.In view of the fact that Japan leads in the world in the development of intellectual property.Due to the same cultural origin,similar national systems,and similar development time of intellectual property strategies,the two countries have high comparability.Therefore,based on the theory of policy informatics,this study takes the intellectual property policy texts at the central level of China and Japan as the research object,introduces policy measures and policy implementation departments,and builds a three-dimensional analysis framework based on policy measures,implementation departments and policy content.At the same time,combined with the synergy analysis,the policy texts are sorted,mined and evolutionary analyzed,and the evolutionary characteristics of the two countries are explored and compared between China and Japan.This research enriches the existing policy research dimension,expands the existing research on foreign intellectual property policy,and has achieved certain results.Firstly,the evolution process of intellectual property policies in China and Japan has distinct characteristics.By comparison,the advantages and improvements of China’s intellectual property policy are as follows:(1)the policy involves comprehensive contents,but the assessment tasks need to be detailed;(2)the coordination of policy implementation is sufficient,but the institutional functions need to be continuously optimized;(3)the public service system is becoming more and more perfect,but the role of public welfare institutions needs to be brought into play;(4)international exchanges and cooperation are beginning to bear fruit,but comprehensive international competitiveness still needs to be strengthened;including the desire to spread intellectual property culture is not strong and the efforts to cultivate international talents and the attractiveness to international talents needs to be strengthened;(5)the types of policies and measures are various,but the type distribution needs to be adjusted urgently.In response to the above problems,this study puts forward the following suggestions:(1)broaden the perspective of policy content development and deeply integrate the "five in one"(2)improve the policy implementation assessment system and improve the effect of policy implementation;(3)deepen the reform of intellectual property related institutions and further clarify the division of department functions;(4)effectively integrate public service resources and widen the breadth of intellectual property services;(5)create new competitive advantages of intellectual property and improve international influence;(6)enrich demand-based policy measures and optimize the overall structure and distribution. |
