Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Patents Technology

China Leads In Graphene Patent Applications 86

Posted by samzenpus
from the how-many-do-you-got? dept.
hackingbear writes According to British patent consultancy CambridgeIP, China has filed for more than 2,200 graphene patents, the most of any country, followed by the U.S. with more than 1,700 patents, and South Korea with just under 1,200 patents. In terms of institutions, Samsung, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, and IBM lead the way of number of patent filing on this futurist materials with seemingly unlimited potentials, followed by Qinghua University of China. As China's moving its economy to be more innovation based and strengthening its IP laws, American companies will perhaps soon be at the receiving ends of patent law suits.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Leads In Graphene Patent Applications

Comments Filter:
  • by SourceFrog (627014) on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:13AM (#47297033)
    why development has stagnated on this 'wonder material'. Patents are killing innovation and development. This is an insane number of patents .. pretty much nobody can realistically develop any graphene-based products and navigate this patent minefield.
    • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:20AM (#47297067)

      On the other hand, in 20 years or so there won't be a single valid patent :)

    • They were just examining what they were scraping off the walls of the buildings in all the Chinese cities.
  • actual referenced article, not lousy BusinessInsider. http://moodle.epfl.ch/pluginfi... [moodle.epfl.ch] Roadmap.pdf
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:35AM (#47297143) Homepage Journal

    China doesn't pay any attention to trademark, copyright, or patent law.

    Why should anyone pay attention to their trademark, copyright, or patent applications? Or grants? They should just be round-filed until China takes on the concept of intellectual property. Not that I'm so in love with the whole idea myself, but there still nothing which is not hypocritical about the nation of China expecting us to give a shit about their IP.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Opportunist (166417)

      Don't worry, the US are similarly ignoring patents when it is in the "national interest", you should be careful when casting stones, might destroy your own glasshouse.

      And likewise, don't worry, as soon as China holds a lot of important patents they will instantly start not only honoring patents and IP but becomes one of the strongest advocates of it. They would be the first that don't turn from copycat to IP zealot as soon as it becomes more profitable.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Don't worry, the US are similarly ignoring patents when it is in the "national interest", you should be careful when casting stones, might destroy your own glasshouse.

        Shit, I sure hope so. I think we'd be better off as a species without patents, and probably without copyrights. Trademarks I'm OK with, nominally. I don't like it when someone ends up owning a color.

  • by Required Snark (1702878) on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:41AM (#47297165)
    Note that the US is not directly involved in any of the major patent holdings. IBM is not really a US company anymore. They are "international". To a great extent they are getting out of the US. A few year ago they stopped listing their employment by country, because they wanted to hide what they were doing. So if there is ever a situation where US interests collide with IBM economic interests then the US will get the short end of the stick.

    This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Note that the US is not directly involved in any of the major patent holdings. IBM is not really a US company anymore. They are "international". To a great extent they are getting out of the US. A few year ago they stopped listing their employment by country, because they wanted to hide what they were doing. So if there is ever a situation where US interests collide with IBM economic interests then the US will get the short end of the stick.

      This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.

      This is the sort of thing someone would say who hasn't surveyed the actual patents. Many of these patents come from US & Chinese universities. Tell me, if University of Chicago holds this patent [uspto.gov], would you restate your position? Don't forget about the Bayh–Dole Act ... a lot of those universities happen to receive money from -- guess who?

      And another thing, when the state itself controls companies and decides where cities are built and who gets contracts then of course they're in control of

    • Note that the US is not directly involved in any of the major patent holdings. IBM is not really a US company anymore. They are "international". To a great extent they are getting out of the US. A few year ago they stopped listing their employment by country, because they wanted to hide what they were doing. So if there is ever a situation where US interests collide with IBM economic interests then the US will get the short end of the stick.

      This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.

      The federal government shouldn't have a "stake in the future" They aren't qualified.

      This idea that government is some sort of benevolent wise-man on a throne, there to guide its naive flock to the promise land with a gentle hand and sage advice, needs to die. There are plenty of ways to get research funding that don't involve a trillion dollar bureaucracy.

      • by retchdog (1319261)

        oh, it'll just be a different trillion dollar bureaucracy, don't kid yourself. maybe a better one (or maybe worse, who really knows?), but it'll still be a bureaucracy with a shitton more money than most people could imagine.

      • This is just wrong. Basic R&D does not work for companies because it is not usually the the company that pays for the work that benefits from it. It's just too long term and the results are too unpredictable. Even the drug companies are finding R&D gives them questionable returns.

        Basic R&D is an external economy with a societal impact. The only way to get enough of it is to fund it across society as whole.

      • by timeOday (582209)

        There are plenty of ways to get research funding that don't involve a trillion dollar bureaucracy.

        "Plenty," such as....

  • by jbmartin6 (1232050) on Monday June 23, 2014 @08:41AM (#47297167)
    Filed with whom? And where? Does this mean 2200 filings within the Chinese patent system? (cambridgeip.com is vulnerable to heartbleed bug and keeps telling me I need Javascript running even if I have it running.)
  • by asylumx (881307) on Monday June 23, 2014 @09:19AM (#47297333)
    Patents are implemented within a country, and then honored (or not honored) by other countries by means of treaties, right? So how has China "filed for" 2200 patents?
    • Not right. Patents only apply to the country they are filed in. So a patent granted in China has no relevance in the United States.

      Samsung has by far the bulk of the patents in this field. If we are going to see anyone suing a US Company it's most likely to be Samsung.

      • by asylumx (881307)
        Either you misread my question, or I have no idea how I'm supposed to interpret your answer: If patents only apply to the country they are filed in, how did China file for 2200 patents? Do they really mean that Chinese companies filed for 2200 US patents? Or do they mean Chinese companies filed for 2200 Chinese patents? Samsung is a Korean company, as another comment mentioned, so the lawsuit you mentioned doesn't really make sense.
  • by Virtucon (127420) on Monday June 23, 2014 @09:53AM (#47297483)

    I'm hoping the rest of the world ignores the Chinese Patents much like the Chinese ignore those of everybody else. [globalecon...arfare.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I guess you don't know much of US business history - the US firms did the exact same thing with every single european patent until they developed enough of a market and advantage to play along. China just did the same thing, and now with new ultra-high technology it will gain advantage and follow the pattern.

    • by number17 (952777)
      That article doesn't say much about China ignoring patent laws. It talks more about how China is using them like everybody else and that Chinese hackers would steal ideas and patent them. As if the people developing those ideas wouldn't patent them themselves.
      • by Virtucon (127420)

        John Bennett points us to an article in the NY Times that claims to be about how China is gearing up to be an innovation powerhouse rather than just known for “copying.” Of course, the actual focus of the article is about how China is trying to get a lot more patents. In fact, we covered this very issue back in October, highlighting how China has set an “innovation policy” that appears much more focused on getting more patents, rather than increasing innovation. There are, of course, some people who still think that the number of patents is a proxy for innovation, but this claim has been debunked so many times, it’s just kind of cute when people still bring it up.

        So, could it be that thanks to sustained US pressure on China to “crack down” on infringement, that China has suddenly come to believe that patents equal innovation? Last month, just before some diplomatic meetings between the US and China over trade issues, US officials did their usual misleading grandstanding about how China doesn’t do enough to “protect” US intellectual property. And, in response, Chinese officials did their usual song-and-dance about how they’re really serious about intellectual property now, and we should stop worrying.

        Of course, as we’ve pointed out, China seems to be much more aggressive with intellectual property lately, but not in the way the US wants. That is, it’s been using patent and copyright laws to make life more difficult for foreign companies, specifically US companies. And, in reading through the details of that NY Times article above, it looks like they’re planning to do more of the same.

  • ....if it comes to patents that they want to use but don't hold, the Chinese will likewise lead in the number of graphene patents IGNORED.

    IP = not a big deal for China....unless they hold it.
    It's so much easier to compete when the rules apply only to everyone else.

  • Is the number of patents really meaningful ?
    For example, a patent on the ballpoint pen is much more powerful than 1000 patents on various ways of making ink cartridges for fountain pens.

  • Patent application:

    <insert well-known invention here> made of graphene!

  • TFA does not says in what country the patent were filed. Are they US patent? Chineese patents? Sum of patent filed in every countries?

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...