US Report Sees Perils To America's Tech Future 373
dcblogs sends this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"The ability of the U.S. to compete globally is eroding, according to an Obama administration report released Friday. It described itself as a 'call to arms.' Titled 'The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States (PDF),' it points out a number of 'alarms,' including: the U.S. ran a trade surplus in 'advanced technology products,' which includes biotechnology products, computers, semiconductors and robotics, until 2002. In 2010, however, the U.S. 'ran an $81 billion trade deficit in this critically important sector.' In terms of federal research, in 1980 the federal government provided about 70% of all dollars spent on basic research, but since then the government's share of basic research funding given to all entities has fallen to 57%. It also says real median household income has stalled, and argues for policies that foster innovation."
Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to foster innovation? Make it so a company doesn't have to spend zillions on lawyers to deal with trolls.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:4, Insightful)
Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks have been shouting these warnings from the rooftops for quite a while. First we sent the factory, now we are sending the associated engineering/science jobs over too. Other countries are investing more in education, while we have been busy making mocking of smart people an art form.
the numbers are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
1995 - Intel/MS and a few other US companies sold dell some parts, dell made a computer in texas and exported it
2011 - intel/ms and others ship the parts to china and the computer comes back to the US
the numbers only look at the cost of products coming in. it's been well established that apple and every other US company keeps most of the value of tech products and the manufacturing cost the chinese get is tiny. that's why acer and asus have net margins like food companies
Bad press (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, well maybe if large chunks of our congress and populace didn't spend time spouting how scientists and technical people are biased and corrupt and don't know any better than plain folks, and we didn't pass laws that strangled technical innovation in a fashion obvious to anyone with a technical background, more kids would be interested in those fields
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What innovation? (Score:4, Insightful)
This [slashdot.org] one?
Make me remember Discworld's gods, that were pretty dumb in general because there is no evolutionary pressure when you are omnipotent. Why try to innovate if you can simply patent common sense and copyright culture forever, push your patent/copyright laws in all the world and take money from that?
Rome syndrome anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
An empire that is starting to buckle under its own weight of ridiculous spending and incessant world conquest. Sound familiar?
Re:Easy way to fix. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it also does the opposite. Imagine spending years to bring a product to market only to see it reverse engineered and copied (and sold cheaper, to a wider audience) by a company with the resources to do it -- you're out of business before you even get started. You essentially just did their R&D for them.
The patent system has much room for improvement, but it does serve a useful purpose.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain to me how that fosters innovation.
There's a shade of grey in there to be discovered somewhere between everything and nothing.
Average math scores (Score:5, Insightful)
The report on page 1-8 has a nice graph of average math scores. However it occurs to me that what matters most for innovation is not average scores but the number of students above a certain level of ability. Basically, if a country has enough high-scoring math students to fill the pipeline of scientists and engineers, it doesn't matter how many low-performing students are dragging down the mean. One of the reasons large Asian countries (China, India, and I would guess Indonesia) are well poised for technical progress is that they have a large population and hence a large talent pool. As long as they can efficiently discover and cultivate their talent they should be fine.
I have never seen anyone talk about the number of high-performing students a country really needs to fill its pipeline. But if you want to talk about being competitive, especially in the next decade where pressure on public budgets at all levels will go from bad to worse, doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on finding the good students and giving them opportunities (scholarships, etc.), and on bumping the above-average ones over that threshold into excellence, than to continue vain attempts to improve the average?
Re:Old News (Score:4, Insightful)
The threaqds above this are bashing patents, but this is the real problem. America needs to culturally value the geek. It's better culturally than when I was in school, but we don't seem to have nearly the strength in our engineering programs these days - not that the schools are necessarily worse, but the number of American-born students in the progams isn't where it should be, and the tuition bubble really isn't helping!
Even though it's pretty obvious these days that only a MESH degree will give you any chance of earning your way out of your tuition debt, there is still no cultural bias towards these programs the way there is elsewhere in the world. If the smart people are here, the design jobs will be here too. Top-notch companies hire where the talent is, and if we lose that we're pretty much doomed.
New economy - post industrial age (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is facing a major economic turmoil.
Basic manufacturing labor is in 2 forms
1) local construction this is non-portable and while modernization gains have happened. It is still taking many man hours to make a house.
2) assembly (this is gadgets or cars) the finished good is portable modernization has applied the Ford factor and there is incredible pressure to reduce the man/hour cost.
a) finished goods are globally transportable, means manpower is used where manpower is lowest cost
b) mechanization is reducting the needed manpower for assembly, every year there is less for someone to do to assemble 100 of something
c) this somewhat applies to farming
The great industrial revolution provided jobs for lots of people to move from farming to manufacturing. We are now facing the reverse prospect where the mechinical revolution is displacing manufacturing jobs. There really are no replacement jobs, "tech" jobs require education and there are not really enough demand.
The post-industrial age is upon us. There really are not places for most of the people to work.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to foster innovation? Make it so a company doesn't have to spend zillions on lawyers to deal with trolls.
Might also want to see there are fewer tax breaks available to companies who shift work out of the country.
I spent a portion of my life in Michigan, where tax incentives were all over the place, trying to keep GM, Ford, Chrysler in the towns they were in, but even after all the tax breaks and assistance the companies still moved a lot of manufacturing to Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Japan, etc. Now almost everyone is moving manufacturing to Thailand, China or Vietnam - with reform efforts in Burma expect investment (read: moving manufacturing and research there as well.)
Discouraging the outright offshoring of everything isn't necessarily protectionist and certainly is in line when confronting countries like China, where they've pegged their currency artificially low to draw in research, manufacturing, etc. It's how they are growing their economy, not entirely unlike how the Japan government subsidised exports for decades, which drew jobs and wealth into Japan, by way of research, manufacturing, etc.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that is trivial to reverse engineer and steal in such a manner probably didn't require that much R&D and isn't worth a patent, certainly for the length of time current patents grant a monopoly.
The current situation is that companies with lots of money can hold smaller competitors to ransom by abusing the patent system. The worst case of abolishing patents is that companies with lots of money can spend more on marketing than smaller competitors and therefore dominate the market. At least with the latter we have a system where more people can build upon those products and try to do something novel, rather than the absurd situation we end up with at the moment where you HAVE to have a valuable patent portfolio that you're willing to use in legal action on other companies in order to compete.
Re:so (Score:2, Insightful)
Moreso that there is not enough privately funded research , especially "basic" or "theoretical" research. Theoretical research does not pay off quickly enough for those that privately finance research. Most modern tech was based on theoretical discoveries from 25-50 years ago.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why limit it to software patents? Our country did so well at the beginning (in part) because we completely ignored the old world's patents. Patents exist to hinder competitors, and are slowing down our progress.
Yes, we did better because we were able to ignore the "old world patents". Meaning, patents were bad when we weren't the ones that held them. I'm not sure that's really a good argument for getting rid of patents as it doesn't really speak to whether patents help or hinder innovation; it only shows that any nation not at the top of the patent pyramid has a vested interest in ignoring them.
Not saying I disagree with the premise that patents can actually hinder innovation, I just don't think your example provides any support for your claim. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy way to fix. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's that trivial to reverse engineer is it really worth the patent? For discussions sake let's take James Dyson's vacuum cleaners. They are of a novel design, likely took a fair bit of R&D, and by most standards are probably worth a patent (despite copying the basic principles from elsewhere and simply applying them to a vacuum cleaner).
How long a monopoly should he have been granted for that design? Ten years? Twenty? If the answer is one to two years then that is probably the lead time on designing a good product in that sector even when you are reverse engineering the design. That time would still be enough for Dyson to establish themselves in the market, make a good return on their R&D, and then compete against the established players in a free market. Dyson would have been forced to compete on quality, value, and other traditional differentiators rather than being able to just benefit from the patent granted monopoly.
That introduction of competition soon after the initial release is actually likely to spur more innovation from many more companies and will ultimately benefit the consumer far more than granting any single entity a monopoly.
Perhaps a high quality patent system with a shorter time limit on patents is a lot better than the current system; but I would argue we are unlikely to ever get that, and that having no patent system at all is at worst the next best option.
Re:Average math scores (Score:3, Insightful)
... doesn't it make more sense to concentrate on finding the good students and giving them opportunities (scholarships, etc.), and on bumping the above-average ones over that threshold into excellence, than to continue vain attempts to improve the average?
What you're saying is anathema to the majority of liberals in the U.S.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most things, software and mechanical, are trivial to reverse engineer.
A slight tweak on a screw can mean all the difference in a number of applications, leaving many engineers shaking their heads; this tweak, however, can easily be copied in a week's time.
Ease of replication is not a measure of effort, novelty, or invention.
Re:the numbers are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Once China started doing some stuff and did a good job, we sent more. And now it's gotten to where we simply don't have the process engineering expertise to fabricate a lot of really high-tech stuff, and it will take years to regain that expertise. You can't learn that kind of stuff from a book, you only really learn it from experience, and since we no longer have any factories doing some of those things, there's nowhere to get experience. So China makes parts we have no capability of making even if we wanted to. At least not for a decade would we be competitive.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here.
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:4, Insightful)
> You might one day have a eureka moment in which you realize that a very easily implemented bit of code can increase computations exponentially or work around some issue.
Do you have any examples?
From my point of view, very little is done as a small, isolated invention these days. I would indicate, for example, Facebook. The idea of Facebook is trivial to reverse engineer, and numerous attempts at improved versions have been attempted, but most have failed with a few (LinkedIn springs to mind) carving out small niches for themselves. The secret ingredient is no longer in a single trivially replicated invention, but in a process (how Facebook has evolved as a platform has kept it ahead of the competition - although I'll admit getting market share early also helped a lot).
I'd also argue that if you simply have a eureka moment, why is that enough to let you retire? Surely we should be looking to reward effort expended over luck?
Re:Average math scores (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just math scores, but in every area. The school system concentrates on bringing everyone up to average in everything, instead of nurturing talents and enabling a child so soar in some specialized area. With one exception: sports. Sports talent is nurtured and allowed to soar. Other areas, not so much.
Everyone needs a certain minimal skill level in a broad range of topics. So make sure everyone gets the basics. But then allow accelerated concentration in a area of talent. Schools don't like to do that. Try arguing for allowing your child to be accelerated in math, literature, any non-sport. Won't happen. You'll argue until you are blue in the face and the school system will push back with all their might.
Try reversing the argument. Suppose the principal said: "Well, yes, your child shows exceptional talent in baseball. Easily enough that with the right coaching he could get a college scholarship, and perhaps even make the major leagues. But other kids will feel bad if we give him more attention. Two days of PE a week is what he gets." The town would hang the principal in effigy. Rightly so, IMHO. Everyone should get a chance to nurture their talent, whatever it is.
But what about a kid who could benefit from acceleration in math? That child will instead be given more busy-work homework that frustrates him or her to tears.
Sorry for the rant, but I take this personally. My daughter is 12, and has worked about half way through my calculus book from freshman engineering. Do you know any schools that will let a 12 year old take AP Calc?
The idea of "No child left behind" is fine. But how about "No talent wasted and no enthusiasm crushed."
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:4, Insightful)
The poster didn't say kill *all* patents. Just software patents. That makes a HUGE difference.
For example, producing a useful drug costs a fortune and takes forever due to the ridiculous amount of experimentation involved. Software development does not have those costs.
Furthermore, the patents being granted are to very obvious things which are having a chilling effect on software development. Not a stimulating effect. Software patents are doing the *exact opposite* of what patents are supposed to do (to software).
So, your example doesn't apply in the context of software development, and software patents should absolutely be abolished in order to foster software innovation.
Re:2002 - the year of casual racism (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not the issue of racism. Its the wholesale destruction of entire sectors of the work force as companies look for ways to cut their bottom line. I'm looking for a tech job in the silicon valley. Over the last 3 months I have to say I'm getting sick and tired of not having spoken to a single person who is American, speaks without an intense Indian or Chinese accent (in fact I may have passed over perfectly good jobs because the person speaking to me was completely and I mean completely unintelligible.) I've worked with hundreds of people from India and China (hell I'm half Chinese, my Mother is Chinese, I was born in Taiwan.) I don't have a problem with these people's race, I like them, I like their food, I love their cultures. I have a problem with the fact that I've watched my salary slowly erode to about 50%. How am I supposed to compete with a tidal wave of HB-1 visas who come from a country with a billion people so the fact that they represent the top half a percentile and have a Masters degree, still means there are millions of them and they're perfectly willing to take my job at half the price. If it now takes a Masters Degree to get a job pushing a broom in the valley because of the glut of skilled foreign workers, there's no room for native workers, how is a native worker supposed to compete. there's no finance for older native workers to improve themselves (the collapsing state economy has steadily made going back to school harder and harder.) There's no market for young fresh native workers coming out of school. All the while, money that would be spent here to improve our State's economy is being pumped into making China or India more wealthy.
Out sourcing jobs in general and the tech market in particular is, in my opinion the very best way possible to implode both America's economy and future ability to determine it's own technological future. All you have to do to make something disappear in America is stop investing in it. Stop investing in skilled American workers, and surprise, in no time at all, they'll just go away. I have good friends who used to be happy engineers, engineering away. Now they cook food, or sell real estate (good luck with that), or they've moved into the health care industry. What they don't do is engineering. All it took was two massive economic busts since 2001. I look at the ads today on DICE, and its crazy what they're asking now for a customer support engineer. If you're tired of talking to people with Punjabi accents think enough to dull a knife when you call for technical support, tell the vendors you deal with, that you want to speak to an American support engineers in the future, in fact let them know you will now stop doing business with companies that outsource their support. OR, you won't have to worry any more, because very soon there won't be any here to do the job anyway.
Outsourcing makes sense for tiny start-ups paying to realize a dream out of there own packets in the midst of the bootstrap (though as our currency meets parity with the yuan and the rupee, even this use is quick disappearing.) I'm just saying, we need to provide serious tax incentives for companies that use native workers and even more serious tax liabilities for companies that heavily outsource. The world is flattening out economically, and that's probably a good thing at a number of levels. But until we reach that point, if we don't protect our working class, we'll destroy the American consumer, and then where's our economy? We're in the midst of the economic spasms caused by American corporations trying to squeeze the beast from both ends and killing off the American workforce in the process. Its time to say enough. its time to ensure that Americans have meaningful work first, because short-sighted runs to profit ultimately hurt everyone save a vanishingly small few. This blind free-fall to the bottom of the pig trough by Corporate America needs to come to a crashing halt, while there's something still left to save.
Re:"Government share??" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine. Kill software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once a new drug is on the market its exact formulation is known, so reverse engineering is a trivial matter. However the required R&D for a new drug is typically around 10 years and $1 billion.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a cultural shift, that's all. The media needs to stop telling young men that no woman will want them if they work a blue collar job, stop telling young women to abandon any man who is not a millionaire, and most importantly stop telling our young people that engineers are antisocial nerds.
The inevitable result (Score:5, Insightful)
A certain segment of the /. population loves to decry government involvement in anything, stating that business, unhindered, would naturally step-in to cure the various evils and ills that the government is so inept at dealing with, and the service would be better, people would be happier, and a modest profit could be made on the side.
Having seen the results of this sort of thinking first hand, I can honestly say that these people are delusional. Of course, I know that I won't ever convince them to change their minds (especially when I insult them), but I feel like typing, so here goes.
I used to be a lab assistant working in a large U.S. university's biomedical research facility. The area I worked was devoted to the keeping, raising, and study of cephalopods. We were the largest such facility in the US and among the top in the world for that type of science. Granted, it is a very specialized field, but the prestige was genuine and we attracted top talent.
Most of our funding came from government grants. The NSF and a few others were our bread and butter even though most of our research was directed toward marketable technologies and techniques. We also sold squid parts to commercial labs. Turns out, squid have a massive axion connecting their eye and the optical lobe of the brain. If humans had a T1 running from our eyes to our brains, squid have an OC-198. We also researched the color changing properties of cephalopod skin, their hydraulic muscle structure, their three heart circulatory system, their corneas and eye lenses (they match ours btw. If you've ever had eye surgery to replace a torn lens, thank a squid), their ink, and their behavior.
To keep all of these critters in one building took a lot of large equipment and a lot of highly skilled people; people that could have made buckets of cash in a commercial setting but chose the lab because we were figuring out thinks like why squid don't get cancer or suffer nearly as many degenerative diseases of the eye. We were trying to figure out why squid and octopuses suffered dementia near the end of their lives and how we could help prevent it. See, once we do that in squid, the way to doing it in people is considerably shorter.
Anyway, all that work took money and that meant begging Uncle Sam for more and more cash which seemed to take more and more paperwork every year. What the government couldn't or wouldn't fund, we supplemented with corporate donations and gifts. The whammy here is that a bunch of biologists who would rather be in 30 feet of water in the Caribbean watching squid fuck are notoriously terrible at convincing others of the need for their research. Still, it had to get done, and done it got. Once you knew the way to fill everything out for the government, it was much easier. They were concerned that you weren't fucking off with the money, that you weren't engaged in monkey torture or feeding rat poison to children, and that you were accounting for every penny. If they were going to give you money, they wanted to know what you did with it. Ok, cool, keep our receipts and stop feeding rat poison to the local children, easily done. The corporate "gifts" and donations were another kettle of squid. They too wanted to know that you weren't fucking off with the money, and wanted it accounted down to the penny, but they were neutral on most ethical subjects. They also wanted to give suggestions. Hey, it would really help out BigCo. if you could figure out a way to reliably and cheaply extract or synthesize cephalotoxin or some tetrodotoxin. In fact, it would help so much that your grant rides on your ability to do so.
And there is the hook. Sure, it is the corporation's money to do as they see fit, but when they step in to "help" they don't want base research, they don't want behavior studies, and they don't give a shit about learning to understand cephalopod communications or the possibility of sentience, they want something that will help their bottom line and they want it right god damn now.
No
Re:Old News (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to do that, we need an economic shift. Pay blue collar workers enough to raise a family, and the stigma will go away. These are the people who do the actual work that CEOs get compensated for.