China Leads In Graphene Patent Applications 86
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.
Re:So now we can steal their IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who drafted all these laws in the first place...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's time to abolish patents completely.
Ten, twenty years ago we were hearing all about this 'wonder material' .. then suddenly we stopped hearing much at all, and didn't really see applications come to market. Now we know why. It's been all but killed by this patent minefield. Your children someday might have a terminal illness that could have been cured by some graphene-based medical product? Sorry, they must rather die so that the corporations who control these patents and patent lawyers can sit on the
Re:So now we can steal their IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So now we can steal their IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly doubt that the solution is to abolish patents, though a great deal of patent reform is certainly necessary.
What we should de doing is looking at when patents are and are not useful, and modifying patent law accordingly. A lot of the analysis should be fairly straight forward to do. Patents themselves have to be registered, so we have records. When patent disputes are taken to the courts, we have records. Many, if not most, of the businesses that license patents have to publish financial reports. (Again, there are records.)
Questions can be asked and answered through all of that data. We can look at the optimal duration for patents for different sectors. We can look at what types of patents stimulate innovation, and what types of patents stifle innovation. We can even look at licensing practices in an effort to reduce the burden that patents place upon the courts.
It isn't all or nothing. Patents are neither entirely good, nor entirely bad. We simply need a way to separate the good from the bad so that we can keep the former and discard the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and now (Score:2)
Patents, in their current state are certainly vastly more harmful to both consumers and industry then they are helpful. As such, having no patents would be more beneficial.
Patents were NEVER intended to be used the way they are now. The intention was simply give the inventor a short time period in which to bring his product to the market before everyone could copy it.
I would think a blanket restriction of two years is enough. Not from time to market, but from time of filing. This will prevent patents for id
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way to "reform" this system. It's non-reformable as it's intrinsically unethical.
[citation needed]
It should be thrown out entirely.
Possibly true. Certainly true that only products should be patentable, and never business methods or technologies. Reducing the time scale on a patent significantly would also solve the problem. Meetings and bureaucracy aside, things happen much faster now so there is no good reason for a patent term to be so very long.
Novel tangible goods (Score:2)
Certainly true that only products should be patentable, and never business methods or technologies.
You have to be a little careful there because some products are essentially processes made tangible such as machines to build other products. I think it would be better to say that only novel tangible goods that have actually been produced should be eligible for a patents. If you cannot make one even in crude prototype form, it is science fiction and should not be patent eligible. The good seeking patent protection should be made available to the patent examiner in order to receive a patent. No math, al
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be a little careful there
If I'm submitting a bill to the floor, I have to be careful. Here on slashdot, I can just leave it for someone else to fill in the blanks :p
Re: (Score:2)
No math, algorithm, software, firmware, chemicals found in nature, intangible idea or process or conceptual tangible goods that have not actually been made should be eligible for patent protection.
Where do you stand on rounded corners?
Design patents & trade dress (Score:2)
Where do you stand on rounded corners?
I think they are lovely. However they aren't particularly novel and rounded corners do have a functional aspect to them so they should in principle be ineligible for patent protection. I'd need a lot of convincing to think they are worthy of trade dress protection. At most I think they *might* qualify as a trademark but even there I'm a bit dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck... we need citations for opinions now?!
Actually, I just wanted a citation for the first part. Seldom does it make sense to throw everything away and start over. There's upheaval and you usually don't end up that much better off. Citation: Look around.
For the second part, I demand more of an explanation. What is wrong with the system that shorter patent terms wouldn't cure? Say three or even two years for software, maybe five years for ideas, seven years for products? Or whatever numbers would actually solve the problem, but I just made these up
How have you solved the free rider problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's time to abolish patents completely.
It's clear that the patent system has serious problems. Patents on software or algorithms or business methods are absurd. However before we go ahead and abolish patents altogether, what is your proposed alternative solution to the free rider problem [wikipedia.org]? Patents were created as a means to mitigate that specific problem. If you have no alternative to solve the free rider problem that is better than a well executed patent system (our current one is not well executed), then your argument is a non-starter. If you do have a solution to the free rider problem then let us know so we can alert the Nobel committee that they owe you a prize.
And before anyone says it, just abolishing patents and doing nothing else is NOT a better system even as screwed up as our patent system has become. If you need evidence of this, please show me how many inventions that would be patentable in the US or Europe that were invented in places without a patent system. Drugs, vehicles, integrated circuits, etc. You will find that places without something resembling a patent system also have a rather low rate of invention. While this is evidence based on a correlation, the correlation is VERY strong. Without some way to mitigate the free rider problem there is limited incentive to solve certain types of problems.
Unless we abolish patents, our children and grandchildren are going to be living in a world that is scarcely more technically advanced than our own is now.
Oh cut out the hyperbole. Technology is advancing very quickly even in the face of an arguably broken patent system. There is no evidence that our rate of technological advancement is slowing down.
Study: Patent Trolls Cost Companies $29 Billion Last Year
While I'm not arguing that patent trolls aren't a real problem (they are), $29 billion is pocket change compared to what companies made off of patented products last year. Intel alone had $52 billion in revenue last year, virtually all of it from patented products. Patented inventions account for literally Trillions of dollars of economic benefit to society, much of which would not exist without some sort of system resembling patents. For many types of inventions, it is virtually impossible to bring products to market in the face of the free rider problem. The solution to the free rider problem doesn't have to be patents in their current form but there does have to be some sort of solution to that problem. Simply tossing out patents without some alternative way to mitigate the free rider problem will almost certainly do more harm than good.
Re: (Score:1)
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply to the intangible. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa... [ssrn.com]
If the patent system is a net harm, then doing nothing is a superior alternative.
Tragedy of the commons != Free rider problem (Score:2)
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply to the intangible.
I wasn't talking about the tragedy of the commons. I was talking about the free rider problem which is not the same thing. Furthermore patents shouldn't apply to the intangible either so exactly what is your point?
If the patent system is a net harm, then doing nothing is a superior alternative.
Your logic is faulty and I don't accept your attempt to frame the question either. I disagree that the patent system is a net harm and you certainly haven't established that as a fact. There is a HUGE difference between showing that the patent system causes some harm (which it demonstrably doe
Re: (Score:1)
The paper I cited explains how complaining about free riders doesn't make sense in regards to innovation.
Patents themselves convey control over something intangible. They control how knowledge can be used, when knowledge is not expendable. That's why they make a poor analog. It's also why pate
Libertarian opinion pieces != evidence (Score:2)
The paper I cited explains how complaining about free riders doesn't make sense in regards to innovation.
The paper you cited is a long winded opinion piece. It contains no discernible actual research regarding the effects of the free rider problem on innovation.
Patents themselves convey control over something intangible.
What patents themselves are is irrelevant. The only questions are whether it mitigates the problem (free riders) that it was intended to mitigate and does minimal economic harm in the process.
I would recommend reading Against Intellectual Property.
No thanks. I briefly looked and I have zero interest in opinion pieces from someone pushing an ideological (libertarian) agenda. I think you are suffering from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Patents were created as a means to mitigate that specific problem. If you have no alternative to solve the free rider problem that is better than a well executed patent system (our current one is not well executed), then your argument is a non-starter.
Patents were not created for that purpose. From wikipedia,
In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent", patents are intended to facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they might prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret.[citation needed] Awarding patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires, or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the patentee's invention is not lost to humanity.[29][specify]
source [wikipedia.org]
The word "patent" itself means expose and make accessible. The patent system was created to spread information while keeping the inventor protected. Otherwise, the inventor would not share his method with anyone else.
The free rider problem is a modern problem. The original intention of the patent system was not to solve the free rider problem.
Free riding (Score:2)
The word "patent" itself means expose and make accessible. The patent system was created to spread information while keeping the inventor protected. Otherwise, the inventor would not share his method with anyone else.
Patents are (supposed to be) for tangible expressions of ideas. Once the idea is expressed, most of them are easy to copy. Without some protection against others copying the original work, there is no economic incentive to work on certain problems because it gives an insurmountable price advantage to the copier. This IS the free rider problem. Even better patents (ideally) harnesses free riders to productive work by making the results of the invention public so others can build on the works in the futu
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. All I'm pointing out is that when the patent system was created, it was to encourage inventors to share their knowledge. Of course with time the patent system has changed and all you have said have become more important than the public disclosure of inventions aspect of patents.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So now we can steal their IP? (Score:4, Insightful)
What would be the point? We have no real manufacturing capability, so we'd just end up sending the stolen back IP to China to be made into products.
Re: (Score:3)
Depending on what metrics you chose to use the US is still at or near the top of international rankings. The U.S. still remains the largest producer of advanced technology products, SO I say the US appears to have some manufacturing capability and that capability is growing stronger because the surge of domestic gas and oil is bringing down energy costs. There are foreign companies that are in the process of moving some of their manufacturing to the US because of the reduced energy costs and reduced shippi
Re:So now we can steal their IP? (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. still remains the largest producer of advanced technology products
Like everything else, these are mostly produced in other countries and then assembled here. Only a small portion of the manufacturing is actually done here, but we take credit for the whole thing. If everyone did that, we could probably double the world's reported production, but it wouldn't actually result in anything more being produced. I like to point to my engine, which is an International-Navistar supposedly MADE IN 'MERICA but whose block was cast in China. And that's over a decade old.
There are foreign companies that are in the process of moving some of their manufacturing to the US because of the reduced energy costs and reduced shipping costs are balancing the higher labor costs.
A little bit of manufacturing, and a whole bunch of assembly. Most of the actual manufacturing is being done in China, then the parts get shipped over and assembled. Subaru might assemble an engine here in the USA, but they don't cast parts here, either. Etc. This practice is restricted to large and heavy items, predominantly automobiles. All the modules (relays, computers etc) are made in other countries, like China or Malaysia. The leather is imported. The metal is imported if it isn't virgin; we send our steel to other countries for recycling so that we can abstract away the pollution.
China has had to manipulate it's currency to keep it's export costs down and attract business but there are limits to the manipulation.
Only the fat cats at the top win a race to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. does make quite a bit of industrial machinery domestically, mostly higher-end stuff. I believe it's 2nd to Germany in that market.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. does make quite a bit of industrial machinery domestically, mostly higher-end stuff. I believe it's 2nd to Germany in that market.
Yes, we are still very good at making shit that kills people, and shit that rapes the earth. Not so good at anything else, except in the design phase, using our imported foreign scientists (a proud tradition since WWII or so.) Construction equipment tends to be made out of virgin steel, we still make that here. It's less brittle and more predictable than recycled, important in stuff you don't want to break.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea I can see exporting bull dozers, cranes, and dump trucks is an ecological disaster just waiting to happen. And rest easy the US never sells the really top of the line weapon systems capable of killing people individually or wholesale when required. And without the US providing the "design phase" none of the other countries would have much to build now would they?
Re: (Score:2)
We have no real manufacturing capability
Hogwash. American factories produced goods worth more than two trillion dollars [nam.org] per year. That is about 20% less than China, but still the second highest in the world [curiouscatblog.net], nearly as much as Germany and Japan combined. Manufacturing output in America is at an all time high. American manufacturing employment has declined, but improved productivity has more than compensated for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Pirating their IP would imply that we were actually going to do useful things with graphene, such as large-scale desalination for our coastal cities. But we're not doing to do that. We're going to sit around trading legal punches with the Luddite lobby until the tech becomes available off the shelf and cheap from China. Then we can whine about the 'Chinks stealing our jobs'.
Learn your histroy son (Score:2)
Specifically, learn about America's adherence to IP after WW2. Protip. They didn't recognize it at all! In fact, WW2 machinery production coupled with the Americas unwillingness to recognize the IP of other countries is what allowed America to become a super power.
On the other hand, with a history like that, one would think America could see that all the blanket IP crap is good for no one.
Well that explains (Score:3)
Re:Well that explains (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, in 20 years or so there won't be a single valid patent :)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you refering to things like this quagmire [techdirt.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity how is this any different than, say, the advent of silicon?
Without patents, perhaps the semiconductor revolution would have happened even faster. Or maybe slower. Certainly differently. It is silly to think that the current situation was the optimal outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not silly to think that. It is, however, silly to assume that.
Re: (Score:2)
actual referenced article (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that also apply to the US one as it is implemented, rather than as it was intended?
Why even pay attention? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Complete lack of US involvement (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Plenty," such as....
Filed? (Score:3)
How does a country lead in patents? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Reciprocity (Score:3)
I'm hoping the rest of the world ignores the Chinese Patents much like the Chinese ignore those of everybody else. [globalecon...arfare.com]
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And curiously.... (Score:2)
....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.
Number of patents (Score:2)
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 Strategy (Score:2)
Patent application:
<insert well-known invention here> made of graphene!
Where? (Score:2)