The reality is the Chinese are trying to become innovative. They are trying to use the patent system now. I have a friend that knows many of the leaders of China. This is something I have been saying now for like 5 years. Moreover, we have China foreign associates that come and speak with us and they say the same thing. That China is putting teeth in the patent system and they have seen vast improvements.
Every area of the world recognized as a high innovation area is part of a country with a strong patent system. I know that doesn’t fit the narrative of the antis.
Let’s recap. China has areas that are now rated as top innovation areas. China has focused on patents. China is now over taking the US in venture money.
8
Narrative control is heavy on this topic as the filter is already active.
7
I have not ploughed through the WIPO Report but I offer the following guesses:
1. The numbers are the aggregate of patents and petty patents and that CN domestics file 20 times as many petty patent applications as applications for 20 year patents.
2. They do it for defensive purposes (like mailing yourself a copy of your copyright work) and to satisfy their own domestic government that they are innovators not copiers.
3. In general, Asians file for defensive purposes, and they file outside their own home country seldom. When they do, they choose where to file in order of importance. First CN (or USA). Later EPO, if the case is hot enough to justify it.
4. Readers, look elsewhere for evidence of innovation prowess.
7.1
Actually, CN has strengthened its patent system and wants to encourage innovation. Their model is S. Korea.
7.2
“4. Readers, look elsewhere for evidence of innovation prowess.”
Just curious, by why is that you think that these items are somehow not indicators of innovation?
If you are aiming at downgrading CN “petty patent applications” as somehow “less than” “true” patent applications, I can get that (kind of). I am not familiar with those items, so I really cannot speak to that. But the rest of the items may very well be the essence of evidence of innovation prowess.
Or are you – like Malcolm – cognitively challenged when it comes to recognizing that patents really do reflect innovation?
7.2.1
” But the rest of the items may very well be the essence of evidence of innovation prowess.”
I think he just means that if the US etc. allowed for petty patents then the number of those filed in the US would grow to 100X those filed in China on the graph. So he doesn’t want anyone drawing a comparison based on this graph between the overall RELATIVE inventiveness of the various nations because of the petty patent inclusion in china but not elsewhere.
7.2.1.1
That’s a worthwhile distinction.
However, based on his comments elsewhere on this thread, I am not sure that I would presume that THAT is his “desired takeaway” with the comment.
7.2.1.1.1
I’m pretty sure there’s nothing else he could mean. But in any event, if they have to disclose their invention in these “petty patents” I wonder why we don’t go ahead and allow them in the US? The whole fcking goal of the patent system is to get people to disclose, if they’ll disclose for a petty patent, more’s the merrier (and much better descriptions of the art). If they’re filing that many in china surely the US would be advancing the arts gigantically with such a program.
7.2.1.1.1.1
I haven’t looked closely enough at whatever differences there may be between “regular” patents and these “petty patents.”
7.2.1.1.1.2
Actually, the goal is more than to just disclose. The goal is to get people to invest money and time into innovation with the knowledge that they can get a patent if they invent something and get a return for their money/time.
(The academics (antis) never talk about it, but there are structural reasons why you would want a patent system. E.g., what if you could spend 4,000 hours inventing a new plow that would be 5% more efficient? It wouldn’t be worth your time unless you had a way to make a return.)
7.2.1.1.1.2.1
“Actually, the goal is more than to just disclose”
Actually, it is not. What you state is an additional goal – not a limit on what the goal of the system is.
The word “promote” includes the notion of “promotion”,” as that word is used in advertising contexts. In that sense, the goal of publishing is in and of itself sufficient as a goal.
It is a mistake to state that “more” is needed for the goal of the system to be in place.
THAT is the type of thing that the Efficient Infringer lobby puts forth. They want only those capable of production-ready status and resources to be able to play the patent game.
The US Sovereign explicitly chose differently in desiring a system that did NOT entail such cost levels.
6
Friendly reminder of how the landscape has changed:
No more copyright extensions, ever. And those patents protecting content and information are going to up in smoke, too. Big Content is going to have a big sad. Boo hoo hoo.
5
That is really weird with all those filings in China from Chinese. Sort of a land-grab because they think the gettin’ is good perhaps?
Looking at Fig. S1 in the article is very odd as well. Talk about exponential growth.
I’m guessing perhaps there is some gubmit push in China to expand patents?
4
A good follow up article would be about the rise of junk patents in China.
4.1
I can’t speak to the junk patents in china but I can say that chinese applicants here seem to be very interested to have even a very narrow patent.
4.2
A good follow-up article would be the rise of innovation in China.
4.2.1
But according to “those in the know,” and stalwart “patent friends” such as Malcolm and MaxDrei reflect that patent filings (petty and otherwise) do NOT reflect innovation.
4.2.1.1
patent filings (petty and otherwise) do NOT reflect innovation
I could file a 100 patent applications today, easily. Big ones!
So. What.
4.2.1.1.1
You are a legend in your own mind.
Too bad about that cognitive dissonance thing that you got going on though, eh?
4.2.1.1.1.1
You are a legend in your own mind.
Not at all. Just pointing out that there’s zero necessary relationship between the number of “patent applications” filed in a country and the amount of innovation taking place there.
Yes, it’s a pretty obvious point for everyone. But not you.
This comment, on the other hand, is an innovative combination of information elements, associated by information element association codes. And it was easy to type. I could do it all day. And then file! Scrivener’s Delight.
4.2.1.1.1.1.1
“ between the number of “patent applications” filed in a country and the amount of innovation taking place there.”
You would – of course – be wrong.
(you really should do something about your cognitive dissonance)
But is there a reason why you shifted the goal post and inserted patent applications as opposed to patents?
4.2.2
They are getting much richer now that the commies are starting to allow markets. They even said this year that capitalists had something to teach commies and that they needed to implement capitalist teachings into their commieisms.
3
Clearly there is more innovation happening in China then in the rest of the world combined. It is now the greatest country by this criterion which nobody can object to. Huge innovation! An entire nation of stable geniuses. America is losing the patent battle because we had a Kenyan President.
3.1
Because this has anything to do with your insistence on inserting NON-patent, political diatribes….
2
For me, the relative numbers of domestic filers as opposed to non-domestic filers is significant. USA and Europe attract filings from outside the jurisdiction, Asian jurisdictions not.
2.1
Except you have been f001ed by the scale.
Look again. The total number of non-domestic filings in China is greater than the total number of non-domestic filings per region in anywhere else except the US.
Does that fact change your viewpoint?
2.1.1
Good point but, no, it does not change my point, which is that the USPTO and the EPO are as popular for foreigners as for locals, the other Patent Offices not.
2.1.1.1
But the pinnacle of your point is in error, that being that the China market is NOT at the bottom, and in fact is more popular to non-domestics than even the EPO.
Maybe try again?
2.1.1.1.1
I’m looking at the Big 5 Patent Offices of the world and, in each, the ratio between i) filings by domestics and ii) filings by non-domestics.
At the USPTO more aliens filings than by US Applicants. Same at EPO. Not the same in CN, JP, KR.
Difficult to see, but it looks like CA, IN, AU also have more non-dom than dom filings.
Perhaps the high number of domestic filings in CN ought to be disregarded as an aberration? Domestics in CN are filing for a reason different from the one driving filings elsewhere, a reason that does not apply to filers of every other nationality.
I still find meaningful though, a comparison between US/EP filing stats and JP/KR filing stats. Why don’t foreigners file more in JP and KR?
2.1.1.1.1.1
Reply stuck in moderation, moderator AWOL.
2.1.1.1.1.2
still stuck
2.1.1.1.1.3
MaxDrei,
You appear to be stuck on the ration between domestic and non-domestic filings, but looking at that ratio induces some odd “results.”
Given that the body of the group that is so segregated is mutually exclusive, you would do better simply comparing non-domestics to other non-domestics, and then comparing (if you wanted to go there), domestics to domestics.
Your point about “petty patents” is a good one, and I wonder if the data above could be made into a more select group of “just normal patents.”
But lacking that – and to the point that you are attempting to make about where “others” may seek out among the several different foreign Sovereigns in order to plunk down their money and obtain patent coverage, it may help you to simply normalize all non-domestic filings by the top non-domestic filing number and then compare the number from Sovereign to Sovereign.
Blowing up the picture and then scaling it in Excel, I roughly come up with the following non-domestic preference listing:
Then the next “group”:
Japan 3.7%
Russia 0.6%
Germany 0.6%
Then another step up to another group:
Australia 2.4%
Canada 0.0%
India 0.0%
Then one more “baby step”:
EPO 4.9%
THEN we have two BIG steps, first:
China 30.5%
and then atop that:
US 40.2%
As you can see, China is preferred OVER the EPO, and is second only to the US.
Your inclination to somehow discount the straight up number of non-domestics seeking innovation protection in China comes across a bit odd.
Of course, when one engages some critical thinking of the numbers, this tiered view makes eminent sense.
2.1.1.1.1.3.1
The reality is the Chinese are trying to become innovative. They are trying to use the patent system now. I have a friend that knows many of the leaders of China. This is something I have been saying now for like 5 years.
2.1.1.1.1.3.2
anon, that many , even most, of corporate filers which file foreign are now more inclined to file in China than at the EPO is well-known.
I wonder whether there will ever come a time when they are more interested in filing in China than in the USA.
Is there not a lot of data, of the sort that is of interest to you, available from the WIPO Report?
…
Every area of the world recognized as a high innovation area is part of a country with a strong patent system.
I know that doesn’t fit your narrative.
…
Fitting narratives has a hefty thumb on the scale with the editorial policies in place here.
1
The volume in China blows the scale out the window.
It might be helpful to add a graph excluding China, so as to more readily see the relative scale for ROW.
The reality is the Chinese are trying to become innovative. They are trying to use the patent system now. I have a friend that knows many of the leaders of China. This is something I have been saying now for like 5 years. Moreover, we have China foreign associates that come and speak with us and they say the same thing. That China is putting teeth in the patent system and they have seen vast improvements.
Every area of the world recognized as a high innovation area is part of a country with a strong patent system. I know that doesn’t fit the narrative of the antis.
link to technologyreview.com
Let’s recap. China has areas that are now rated as top innovation areas. China has focused on patents. China is now over taking the US in venture money.
Narrative control is heavy on this topic as the filter is already active.
I have not ploughed through the WIPO Report but I offer the following guesses:
1. The numbers are the aggregate of patents and petty patents and that CN domestics file 20 times as many petty patent applications as applications for 20 year patents.
2. They do it for defensive purposes (like mailing yourself a copy of your copyright work) and to satisfy their own domestic government that they are innovators not copiers.
3. In general, Asians file for defensive purposes, and they file outside their own home country seldom. When they do, they choose where to file in order of importance. First CN (or USA). Later EPO, if the case is hot enough to justify it.
4. Readers, look elsewhere for evidence of innovation prowess.
Actually, CN has strengthened its patent system and wants to encourage innovation. Their model is S. Korea.
“4. Readers, look elsewhere for evidence of innovation prowess.”
Just curious, by why is that you think that these items are somehow not indicators of innovation?
If you are aiming at downgrading CN “petty patent applications” as somehow “less than” “true” patent applications, I can get that (kind of). I am not familiar with those items, so I really cannot speak to that. But the rest of the items may very well be the essence of evidence of innovation prowess.
Or are you – like Malcolm – cognitively challenged when it comes to recognizing that patents really do reflect innovation?
” But the rest of the items may very well be the essence of evidence of innovation prowess.”
I think he just means that if the US etc. allowed for petty patents then the number of those filed in the US would grow to 100X those filed in China on the graph. So he doesn’t want anyone drawing a comparison based on this graph between the overall RELATIVE inventiveness of the various nations because of the petty patent inclusion in china but not elsewhere.
That’s a worthwhile distinction.
However, based on his comments elsewhere on this thread, I am not sure that I would presume that THAT is his “desired takeaway” with the comment.
I’m pretty sure there’s nothing else he could mean. But in any event, if they have to disclose their invention in these “petty patents” I wonder why we don’t go ahead and allow them in the US? The whole fcking goal of the patent system is to get people to disclose, if they’ll disclose for a petty patent, more’s the merrier (and much better descriptions of the art). If they’re filing that many in china surely the US would be advancing the arts gigantically with such a program.
I haven’t looked closely enough at whatever differences there may be between “regular” patents and these “petty patents.”
Actually, the goal is more than to just disclose. The goal is to get people to invest money and time into innovation with the knowledge that they can get a patent if they invent something and get a return for their money/time.
(The academics (antis) never talk about it, but there are structural reasons why you would want a patent system. E.g., what if you could spend 4,000 hours inventing a new plow that would be 5% more efficient? It wouldn’t be worth your time unless you had a way to make a return.)
“Actually, the goal is more than to just disclose”
Actually, it is not. What you state is an additional goal – not a limit on what the goal of the system is.
The word “promote” includes the notion of “promotion”,” as that word is used in advertising contexts. In that sense, the goal of publishing is in and of itself sufficient as a goal.
It is a mistake to state that “more” is needed for the goal of the system to be in place.
THAT is the type of thing that the Efficient Infringer lobby puts forth. They want only those capable of production-ready status and resources to be able to play the patent game.
The US Sovereign explicitly chose differently in desiring a system that did NOT entail such cost levels.
Friendly reminder of how the landscape has changed:
link to arstechnica.com
No more copyright extensions, ever. And those patents protecting content and information are going to up in smoke, too. Big Content is going to have a big sad. Boo hoo hoo.
That is really weird with all those filings in China from Chinese. Sort of a land-grab because they think the gettin’ is good perhaps?
Looking at Fig. S1 in the article is very odd as well. Talk about exponential growth.
I’m guessing perhaps there is some gubmit push in China to expand patents?
A good follow up article would be about the rise of junk patents in China.
I can’t speak to the junk patents in china but I can say that chinese applicants here seem to be very interested to have even a very narrow patent.
A good follow-up article would be the rise of innovation in China.
But according to “those in the know,” and stalwart “patent friends” such as Malcolm and MaxDrei reflect that patent filings (petty and otherwise) do NOT reflect innovation.
patent filings (petty and otherwise) do NOT reflect innovation
I could file a 100 patent applications today, easily. Big ones!
So. What.
You are a legend in your own mind.
Too bad about that cognitive dissonance thing that you got going on though, eh?
You are a legend in your own mind.
Not at all. Just pointing out that there’s zero necessary relationship between the number of “patent applications” filed in a country and the amount of innovation taking place there.
Yes, it’s a pretty obvious point for everyone. But not you.
This comment, on the other hand, is an innovative combination of information elements, associated by information element association codes. And it was easy to type. I could do it all day. And then file! Scrivener’s Delight.
“ between the number of “patent applications” filed in a country and the amount of innovation taking place there.”
You would – of course – be wrong.
(you really should do something about your cognitive dissonance)
But is there a reason why you shifted the goal post and inserted patent applications as opposed to patents?
They are getting much richer now that the commies are starting to allow markets. They even said this year that capitalists had something to teach commies and that they needed to implement capitalist teachings into their commieisms.
Clearly there is more innovation happening in China then in the rest of the world combined. It is now the greatest country by this criterion which nobody can object to. Huge innovation! An entire nation of stable geniuses. America is losing the patent battle because we had a Kenyan President.
Because this has anything to do with your insistence on inserting NON-patent, political diatribes….
For me, the relative numbers of domestic filers as opposed to non-domestic filers is significant. USA and Europe attract filings from outside the jurisdiction, Asian jurisdictions not.
Except you have been f001ed by the scale.
Look again. The total number of non-domestic filings in China is greater than the total number of non-domestic filings per region in anywhere else except the US.
Does that fact change your viewpoint?
Good point but, no, it does not change my point, which is that the USPTO and the EPO are as popular for foreigners as for locals, the other Patent Offices not.
But the pinnacle of your point is in error, that being that the China market is NOT at the bottom, and in fact is more popular to non-domestics than even the EPO.
Maybe try again?
I’m looking at the Big 5 Patent Offices of the world and, in each, the ratio between i) filings by domestics and ii) filings by non-domestics.
At the USPTO more aliens filings than by US Applicants. Same at EPO. Not the same in CN, JP, KR.
Difficult to see, but it looks like CA, IN, AU also have more non-dom than dom filings.
Perhaps the high number of domestic filings in CN ought to be disregarded as an aberration? Domestics in CN are filing for a reason different from the one driving filings elsewhere, a reason that does not apply to filers of every other nationality.
I still find meaningful though, a comparison between US/EP filing stats and JP/KR filing stats. Why don’t foreigners file more in JP and KR?
Reply stuck in moderation, moderator AWOL.
still stuck
MaxDrei,
You appear to be stuck on the ration between domestic and non-domestic filings, but looking at that ratio induces some odd “results.”
Given that the body of the group that is so segregated is mutually exclusive, you would do better simply comparing non-domestics to other non-domestics, and then comparing (if you wanted to go there), domestics to domestics.
Your point about “petty patents” is a good one, and I wonder if the data above could be made into a more select group of “just normal patents.”
But lacking that – and to the point that you are attempting to make about where “others” may seek out among the several different foreign Sovereigns in order to plunk down their money and obtain patent coverage, it may help you to simply normalize all non-domestic filings by the top non-domestic filing number and then compare the number from Sovereign to Sovereign.
Blowing up the picture and then scaling it in Excel, I roughly come up with the following non-domestic preference listing:
US: 100.0%
China: 59.8%
EPO: 29.3%
India: 24.4%
Canada: 24.4%
Australia: 24.4%
Germany: 22.0%
Russia: 21.3%
Japan: 20.7%
Korea: 17.1%
Or….
In percentage steps from the bottom up:
Korea start
Then the next “group”:
Japan 3.7%
Russia 0.6%
Germany 0.6%
Then another step up to another group:
Australia 2.4%
Canada 0.0%
India 0.0%
Then one more “baby step”:
EPO 4.9%
THEN we have two BIG steps, first:
China 30.5%
and then atop that:
US 40.2%
As you can see, China is preferred OVER the EPO, and is second only to the US.
Your inclination to somehow discount the straight up number of non-domestics seeking innovation protection in China comes across a bit odd.
Of course, when one engages some critical thinking of the numbers, this tiered view makes eminent sense.
The reality is the Chinese are trying to become innovative. They are trying to use the patent system now. I have a friend that knows many of the leaders of China. This is something I have been saying now for like 5 years.
anon, that many , even most, of corporate filers which file foreign are now more inclined to file in China than at the EPO is well-known.
I wonder whether there will ever come a time when they are more interested in filing in China than in the USA.
Is there not a lot of data, of the sort that is of interest to you, available from the WIPO Report?
Every area of the world recognized as a high innovation area is part of a country with a strong patent system.
I know that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Fitting narratives has a hefty thumb on the scale with the editorial policies in place here.
The volume in China blows the scale out the window.
It might be helpful to add a graph excluding China, so as to more readily see the relative scale for ROW.
Comments are closed.