IP5 Annual Report

by Dennis Crouch

From the perspective of the leading patenting countries, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has become a non-productive and fairly toxic environment with regard to international cooperation and substantive harmonization.  Although the US continues to fully participate in WIPO, most progress and cooperation has come through bilateral and multilateral agreements between trading partners and regional patent offices.

The leading new organization is the IP5 that is a cooperative group including the USPTO, European Patent Office (EPO), Japanese Patent Office (JPO),  Korean Intellectual Property Organization (KIPO), and the Chinese Patent Office (SIPO).  The organization formerly operated as the tri-lateral cooperative, but in recent years added KIPO and SIPO to the ranks. (The EPO includes 37 European Nations.)

Over 90% of all utility patents originate from inventors residing within the jurisdiction of one of the five offices. The chart below shows how the trend has changed over the past few years.

IP5Tally

[Read the IP5 Report]

 

37 thoughts on “IP5 Annual Report

  1. 5

    “Also, 6, if you don’t believe that patents help promote innovation why in the world do you work for the PTO?”

    I never said that I don’t belieb that patents help promote innovation. They surely do.

    That is not what is in question here brosefus. What is in question is whether or not that promotion, and the means of accomplishing that promotion, helps or hinders the econ. It may be that a weak(er) or limited patent system accomplishes the promotion of innovation (at least sufficiently so) with maximum econ benefit. And maybe the congress wants their entitlement program to benefit the econ more than innovation, or maybe they’d like to fiddle around with things based on econ factors.

    I’m just saying, all that is a possibility.

    In fact it is a hypothesis with at least one rather large data point in support thereof.

    “Go get a job you can believe that you are doing some good in the world.”

    That is excellent advice brosef. Truly, don’t think I haven’t considered it, regardless of your preceding strawman or what appears to be a typo that came after it.

    1. 5.1

      It was an off-line question from the normal fray 6. It does sound like you would be happier doing something else. I don’t mean this to detract from any of your arguments because it doesn’t.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          I’d love to be the analyst on Orioles’ broadcasts, but it’s probably not gonna happen. In the meantime, I’ll keep paying the bills with this patent attorney gig.

  2. 4

    I interrupt your regularly scheduled patent programming to bring you this breaking news regarding lawl that will affect you in your everyday lives. The USSC decides that the po po are entirely justified in stopping or questioning you for conduct they reasonably believe is illegal even when there is no law against what you did. In other words, if the po po be dumb re the lawl, but reasonably so, they can stop you for more things.

    “http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf”

      1. 4.1.1

        Again anon, I’m much more friendly to USSC decisions curtailing state power. Such is the case here. I’m less friendly to this USSC decision expanding state power beyond that which a reasonable and reasonably knowledgeable person might guess on the street.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          You do realize that being against state power for the sake of being against state power makes you a bit of an anarchist, right?

          You do also realize that stronger patents are a good thing, right?

          Combining the two, it is evident that your anti-patent mentality is aligned with the anarchist in you.

          (and by the by, “reasonable” does not take a vacation – unlike in your world – and the “po po” are not granted unlimited “be dumb re the lawl,” as your post implies.

          1. 4.1.1.1.1

            “You do realize that being against state power for the sake of being against state power makes you a bit of an anarchist, right?”

            I’m just a minimalist brosef, I’m not much for complete removal of state power everywhere.

            “You do also realize that stronger patents are a good thing, right?”

            Not necessarily.

            “Combining the two, it is evident that your anti-patent mentality is aligned with the anarchist in you.”

            That’s quite limb you’re out on there.

            But then, it fits with your mentally disturbed persona. I suppose you’re having a flair up this evening. I suppose I should just stop talking to you to spare the forum more of your blabbering.

            “by the by, “reasonable” does not take a vacation – unlike in your world – and the “po po” are not granted unlimited “be dumb re the lawl,” as your post implies”

            My post explicitly says that the limitation on the dumbness is being reasonably dum b. I swear to god anon, you’re having a flair up bro. See about seeing a professional in the morning man.

            1. 4.1.1.1.1.1

              I am aware of what your post explicitly said.

              Are you aware of what my post explicitly said?

              Do you even realize that your post also says something implicitly?

              Think man, think.

    1. 4.2

      The statutes in question actually do appear to be a bit difficult to read unless you read them one after another in context.

      “http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/bysection/chapter_20/gs_20-129.pdf”

      Rear Lamps. – Every motor vehicle, and every trailer or semitrailer attached to a motor vehicle and every vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall have all originally equipped rear lamps or the equivalent in good working order, which lamps shall exhibit a red light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of such vehicle. One rear lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed that the number plate carried on the rear of such vehicle shall under like conditions be illuminated by a white light as to be read from a distance of 50 feet to the rear of such vehicle. Every trailer or semitrailer shall carry at the rear, in addition to the originally equipped lamps, a red reflector of the type which has been approved by the Commissioner and which is so located as to height and is so maintained as to be visible for at least 500 feet when opposed by a motor vehicle displaying lawful undimmed lights at night on an unlighted highway.

      No person shall sell or operate on the highways of the State any motor vehicle, motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, manufactured after December 31, 1955, unless it shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps.

      The first section of these two was held to not be talking about break lights by the state court and the USSC did not disturb that holding, but did hold that the po po was reasonable in thinking that the first section did apply to break lights in addition to any other back lights. I’d just like to say that this is the sort of nonsense that comes of having 50+ year old statutes that nobody understands the terminology of anymore. Reminds me of 35 USC 101.

      1. 4.2.1

        Gee 6, you must not like the even older separation of powers doctrine then (and I can take a guess how you feel about that old Comstitution…)

    2. 4.3

      I don’t like this one at all because it is based on a subjective standard. Now you could be stopped and they could claim all sorts of things. Pretty much removes a big chunk of our rights.

    3. 4.4

      The dumb one here was the owner of the car who consented to the search. When the police ask if they can search your car, all you have to say is, “No.”

    4. 4.5

      The discussion of this I heard was that the stopping was not “unreasonable” because the police reasonably thought the person was breaking the law (even though the person was not).

      We’ll have to see how much this actually affects what happens. This seems like relatively narrow facts to me, but perhaps I’m not seeing the big picture.

  3. 3

    Cultural, economic, political and philosophical ideologies about the individual, the State, commerce, rights, and property, specifically intellectual property, notwithstanding, all countries in the world should easily come to complete agreement/compromise if only the “right kind of people” were in charge.

  4. 2

    “From the perspective of the leading patenting countries, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has become a non-productive and fairly toxic environment with regard to international cooperation and substantive harmonization. ”

    That’s weird. You should tell us readers more about that particular topic if you can.

    1. 2.2

      I second that. Dennis quotes no authority for “toxic for the leading patent jurisdictions” but states it as if it is an incontrovertible fact.

      Is it? Even if there is only one leading jurisdiction in the world of patents who, in that jurisdiction, besides Dennis, is crying “toxic” please?

      1. 2.2.1

        Well, MaxDrei, if I apply the logic of 6, Britney Spears crying “toxic” can be fully interchanged with any technical “jurisdiction.”

        And as far as I know, any rumors of Prof. Crouch performing a duet with Britney are just that: rumors.

    2. 2.3

      I also agree that substantiation is needed for the statement that “(WIPO) has become a non-productive and fairly toxic environment with regard to international cooperation and substantive harmonization.”

      JAQT

  5. 1

    Wow, according to the patent faithful’s ideology China must be the most innovative country in the world now. Also according to that ideology I suppose their economy must be the best since they have the most patent apps being filed.

    Interesting how everyone but china had a dip in 2008-09 also.

    1. 1.1

      You must have been sleeping when I posted the link to the story that China has passed the US as the worlds leading economic power…

      1. 1.1.1

        I saw it in other forums if not here anon. But they still lag behind in per capita econ output.

        Still, the patent filings numbers ought to shoot a fairly large sized hole in the whole “the US is number one because of our patent filings” thinking and the ideology behind it.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          Not sure what you are trying to say here 6, but certainly these numbers do not support any of the anti-patent theories.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            “Not sure what you are trying to say here 6, but certainly these numbers do not support any of the anti-patent theories.”

            They don’t need to “support” any of the “anti-patent” theories. Patents do not exist in nature, and if you tear down or weaken the ideology upon which their existence is established then the future looks all the less certain for them. Or at least “strong” rights.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              6,

              I do not see where you are heading with a “do not exist in nature” meme, as I am sure that you are aware, our entire government (any of it) does not ‘exist in nature.’

              Please open your eyes and think of exactly who it is that benefits from weaker patents. (hint: it is not innovators)

        2. 1.1.1.2

          Actually the opposite 6, as China’s advancements come in parallel to their strengthening of their patent system.

          (that’s kind of the point of noticing the ill effects we have here with the rampant anti-patent sentiments)

          1. 1.1.1.2.1

            “as China’s advancements come in parallel to their strengthening of their patent system.”

            Not quite “in parallel” anon. Review the numbers. The “strengthening” of their patent system, and their increased filings, lags their growth and has, if anything, apparently helped to slow it down. That is if we’re just running the numbers anyway.

            1. 1.1.1.2.1.1

              Every country that has strong innovation has strong patents.

              Also, 6, if you don’t believe that patents help promote innovation why in the world do you work for the PTO? Go get a job you can believe that you are doing some good in the world.

              Life is too short. Go find something else. And I don’t mean that sincerely.

            2. 1.1.1.2.1.2

              if anything, apparently helped to slow it down

              Apparently 6, you come from a dimension that has logic flowing differently than it does here on planet Earth.

              1. 1.1.1.2.1.2.1

                Apparently you can’t read the numbers. Their laws were “strengthened” AFTER the increase.

Comments are closed.