Chinese Researcher Points Out How Patents Can Hinder Innovation
from the surprising dept
I have no doubt that many Chinese officials understand quite clearly how the patent system is really a protectionist system and are fully intending to use it as an economic weapon against foreign competitors to Chinese companies. It's really kind of brilliant when you think about it. The US has been pressuring China on patent laws for decades, and this way China gets to say it's following exactly what the US has demanded of it, and "respecting" intellectual property, while, at the very same time and using the very same system, basically using it to harm the very American companies who for years have complained about Chinese companies infringing on patents. Live by the patent, die by the patent.Still, it's quite surprising to see (via Glyn Moody) an opinion piece at China Daily by Mei Xinyu, a research scholar at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, so accurately laying out the problem with patents. Here are just a few snippets, but the whole thing is worth a read:
The fundamental driving force of innovation is competition, while IPR protection in substance is a kind of monopoly. Monopoly can provide incentives for innovation, but it can also prompt former innovators to gain high return by relying on the products they have already innovated, rather than pushing them toward further innovation. Such a situation will ultimately weaken the power of technological innovation.It's really one of the most accurate explanations of the problems with patents today that I've seen in a while.
Moreover, a stringent IPR protection system will encourage enterprises to take moral risks. To maintain their competitive edge, some enterprises can use a strict IPR system to set up barriers for their competitors.
Some scholars describe the IPR disputes raised by developed countries against developing countries as "removing the ladder of development of developing countries". Enterprises in developed countries often erect trade barriers against their foreign competitors, especially those from developing countries, in the name of "infringement of intellectual property".
Very stringent IPR protection laws can worsen the conditions needed for innovation. They can force innovators to focus less on further innovation, and more on "infringement".
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, innovation, monopolies, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's a whole new world for them having to deal with the reality of being a leader rather than being a follower. Some of them just won't understand how to do it, but they will soon find out what it feels like to create great ideas and have the next up and coming country rip them off and replicate them cheaper and faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am thinking about how "Hollywood" ended up in California instead of New York.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Listen closely, and you will hear the same thing coming from China. They are turning the corner away from being just knock off artists, and attempting to take charge and lead in technology and design. As that happens, there will be more and more push to respect patents and copyrights, especially internally to the country.
It's called maturing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dispute his claims if you can. Don't slander his country.
This is what makes everyone sick about your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dispute his claims if you can. Don't slander his country.
This is what makes everyone sick about your type."
Hear, hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cant wait
Technology we have today is to powerful for our child like minds to use responsibly.
"The fundamental driving force of innovation is competition"
Whaaa whaaaa, that's too hard.
"it can also prompt former innovators to gain high return by relying on the products they have already innovated, rather than pushing them toward further innovation"
Aww that's so nice. He could have just said makes them lazy and stupid.
"some enterprises can use a strict IPR system to set up barriers for their competitors. "
Some? Oh yeah ones with money and lobbyist's.
"They can force innovators to focus less on further innovation, and more on "infringement""
Damn pie-rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I cant wait
If the patent thicket was that strong, we would still be using motorola brick phones. We are not. The proof is in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I cant wait
Who do you think pays for all the lawsuits? The consumers, that's who.
And who gets paid for the lawsuits? The fucking lawyers, that's who. The greedy lawyers who wish the lawsuits last forever, like you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I cant wait
>> be using motorola brick phones. We are not. The proof
>> is in reality.
Remember when phone service ran $35 for 75 minutes?
We are not using motorola brick phones because digital is more efficient. Under analog, a cell site could multiplex only something like 16 simultaneous calls over 1,000 square miles. With digital, capacity increased by several factors.
What's happening lately is bankruptcies of companies with a lot invested in R&D. with 4G, Most R&D is happening overseas. If you own the IP and knowhow, you can set the royalty rate.
So if the new generation of technology can increase capacity by a factor of 4, but your royalty is 2x more, it doesn't leave much wiggle room for a decrease in price for the customer, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
Yes, but in a patent thicket, one company would hold the patent, they wouldn't let anyone else use it, and we would still be stuck on analog.
The thicket blocks little except the sheep too stupid to think of a way around the only 8 foot section of fence on the whole field (or commons, if you like).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
MPEG LA just gave a good example very recently of that kind of behavior.
Also this explains why American companies are sinking to the bottom fast, Asian companies are now holding all the IP and the American companies can't compete even if they wanted to LoL
Is not that beautiful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
Unless someone can afford to pay the license fees, which is a perfect mechanism for keeping small competitors out of the picture: they ask for ridiculous amounts, that only rich, lawyered-up companies can pay.
"The thicket blocks little except the sheep too stupid to think of a way around the only 8 foot section of fence on the whole field (or commons, if you like)."
You really have a problem with analogies. If it were ONE patent, then it's a fence you can get around of. If it's many different patents about many different aspects of a product, it's a jungle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
Repeat as needed.
Remember that much of what is in the cell phone field is already expired, and the horrible thicket that Mike keeps referring to is ticking away as well. Soon enough, it will all be meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
That would be nice, but most just add another piece of fence for the next guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
Huawei wins injunction against NSN-Moto deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I cant wait
I hope you are from Asia because otherwise you are the one outside the 8 foot fence of IP BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I cant wait
Also every American business pay taxes to the Japanese and South Koreans in that market, when not so long ago is was the Asian countries that had to pay things.
Further you get examples in electronics, farming and pharmaceutical products too.
Have you been to Asia to see what they do over there?
They have things that their U.S. counterparts can only dream of doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw, Rick Falkvinge (former Pirate Party leader) has written a series of very interesting articles on copyright history. The final part was posted today and it's very much related to the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are patents intrinsically bad?
There is value in patents. There are plenty of good ideas that never get launched because of the risk in developing them. Patent protection can INCREASE innovation. But get too heavy-handed with it and it can decrease innovation.
Sorry if that fact doesn't exude the clarity some seek on the issue of patents. Now if you want to talk about innovation, that's different. Patents can be a useful tool for innovation, if properly used. When can we have a discussion about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are patents intrinsically bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see other countries cowering and trying to stop anything, what I see is those countries gearing up to trash the U.S. in a global market and exclude them even further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a patent thicket
Since the example of smartphones is being discussed, do a quick search for patent lawsuit and any phone company you can think of. The companies are all holding each other at gun point right now, each with claims that the other is infringing on their patents. And there's a good chance they are all correct, after all, every company patented every little thing they made, yet the phones we have today all use the same technologies inside.
Software is no better. Microsoft, Google, Oracle, SCO, Linux; everybody claims somebody else is using their patents. And the funny thing is, they are all relying on patents from Bell Labs and Xerox, who we have to thank for things like windows and the mouse.
#13 is completely right; the only players are those who can afford millions of dollars in licensing fees and herds of lawyers to scour over the paperwork.
You can't just start a new company and compete if you want to remain compatible. Want to make a smartphone? You'll have to pay 3GPP or Qualcomm if you want to build a phone that can work on current networks. Want to work with current file formats? License fees for those too. Sure, you could make new ones of both, but that's not helping anybody; compatibility is important. Innovation shouldn't mean reinventing the wheel; you should be able to start with what already exists and add something to it. With the plethora of patents out there, you'll either have to pay a large part of your profits just to enter the market or you'll have to start again from scratch. Either way, you start off at a disadvantage against those who are already well established. All of those license fees eat into what little profit margins some products already have; there are many products that never get made because, with all the license fees, there isn't enough margin left to be profitable. That's not encouraging competition; that's hindering it.
The truth is, everybody is infringing somebody else's patents, but they don't bother starting trouble unless they think they have enough money to sue the other into the ground. The recent cases have all come down to companies comparing their portfolios and deciding who is infringing more, then quietly settling behind closed doors.
What's the point of IP protection if everybody infringes anyway? The only reason our current IP system works at all is because it's so rarely enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need a big picture approach
Seems to me that one of the results of innovation is rapid change. But we don't necessarily have a society built to accommodate rapid change. Consider home ownership, for example. By encouraging home ownership, we are suggesting there is value in remaining in one location. But responsiveness to change, particularly if companies and countries are constantly attempting to outdo each other, may require a very mobile and nimble workforce. That may require moving from city to city and even from country to country in pursuit of opportunities. And it will likely require constant educational and skill upgrades. We not really anywhere close to providing for those lifestyles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lost in the translation
Something got lost in the translation. What they meant was patents can hinder "theft of" innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chairman Mike
A Chinese Patent official announced to a small group about a year ago at UC Berkeley that infringers in China will now see jail time for their misbehavior! While it is amusing to imagine Gates stuck in a cell on some mountaintop in Tibet, China's actions are meant to protect those Chinese patent holders while refusing rights to those seeking enforcement from the West. Yes indeed, soon Chinese patents on the iPad will be granted to the real manufacturer in China and Apple officers and representatives will see arrest and detention in China if they don't pay the bribes, and definite arrest and imprisonment here in the States if they do- what's a multi-billionaire to do?
Yes Chairman Mike this is an early voice in a round of state approved misappropriation which will excuse unbridled excess in enforcement against those foolish enough to try to compete in China without major payoffs to the communist party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]