Chinese Junk Patents Flood Into Australia, Allowing Chinese Companies To Strategically Block Innovation
from the perverse-incentives dept
Techdirt has been writing for a while about China's policy of providing incentives to file patents -- regardless of whether those patents have any worth. That's led to a naïve celebration of the large numbers now being granted, as if more patents corresponded to more innovation.
Until now, this problem of junk patents has been confined to China, and the companies that operate there. But last year China went even further with its subsidy system, offering to pay the fees for filing overseas, presumably to encourage Chinese companies to build up patent portfolios in foreign markets that can be used for defensive or even offensive purposes. We're now beginning to see the effects of this further distortion to the patent system, as Australian businesses struggle with the flood of new patents there. The Patentology blog explains:
A Chinese government scheme providing financial incentives for small and medium sized enterprises, public institutions or scientific research institutions appears to be resulting in abuse of the Australian patent system, and the 'dumping' of numerous low-quality innovation patents on the Australian Register.
This is a perfect example of how granting more patents actively harms innovation. Thanks to China's incentive scheme, which encourages patent quantity rather than quality, Australian businesses must now spend more time searching through them all to see if they are likely to affect their own products, deciding if they are a threat, and what to do about it. All that costs money that could have been spent on real innovation, developing new products. Thanks to the patent system, and China's new incentives, that money will now go to the lawyers.
These 'junk' patents are not being examined or certified. They therefore represent no more than potential enforceable rights. Even so, they generate costs to companies operating legitimately in Australia, which may need to obtain advice on the likely scope and validity of these patents in order to avoid possible infringement. In extreme cases, the existence of junk patents could result in an Australian business choosing not to take the risk of bringing a new product to market, even though the Chinese owner of a patent is not itself offering any products or services in this country.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: australia, china, innovation, junk, patents
Reader Comments
The First Word
“These patent applications are only for 'innovation patents' which are strange beasties in that they:
* last for 8yrs only
* are designed to protect patents that don't meet the threshold within Australia for either inventiveness and/or manufacturing process's
* are designed to protect an incremental (slight some might say) advance on existing technology [ie: innovative not inventive]
* allows the patent holder (innovator) to protect each stage of development before final outcome is reached.
* Are VERY VERY cheap (approx $190US) to apply online for
* Get approved within weeks!
Yes I hear you all state WTF!!! That's amazing!! that would totally stop people copying and innovating etc.
Yes and No... That's where the problematical limitations of the innovation patent comes into play. You see if someone allegedly copies or otherwise the patent then if they want to take ANY legal action whatsoever then the innovation patent then needs to be fully examined and certified like any other normal patent first.
This basically means that if you try to enforce your patent through any means (including Cease &Desists) then you better be prepared to have the application fully vetted as per normal AND approved (with all ability to dispute by any party beforehand) before any court will grant you even a mention let alone a hearing. Also using the innovation in a way that claims it is a real patent could be actionable under our Competition and Consumer Act (ss52.
This doesn't mean that some small business operator could not be intimidated by the mention of "innovation patent" for some product if they didn't understand the law. And as Dr Summerfield also states the actual physical certificate looks too much like a standard patent certificate and could (and would) cause confusion and so needs to be changed to something less 'official' looking.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Then why the hell are they in existence?
Irony alert. Set ridiculous to stun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patentology
Obvious from the blog (worth checking out) but maybe needs clarifying in this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the Australian patent office doesn't have the manpower or the will to check every patent that goes their way, then they should have thought of that before opening the floodgates! And if they would actually do their job, then the "junk patents" would not have been granted anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... which encourages anything except quality...
Wait, isn't it what the US do? I mean, value the success of the patent system by the quantity of patents granted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Too complex to politicians usual little minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
China is taking its cue from the US, using patents to lock out innovation and create a potential war zone of litigation, e.g. Apple vs Samsung. Expect to see more Chinese companies pursuing legal avenues to block innovation (market competition) and be given a free handout for no effort whatsoever. And why not? They have the Chinese government backing their efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who wants to take a bet that America will force through changes so that they don't have to pay, lol, maybe this is what we needed to have real change in the patent system, someone coming up with more junk patents than Americans so that Americans do not benefit from their own patent system , and if the Chinese are backing these patents then legal fees to sue will be available for every single one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting the wheel, and other myths
Firstly, the Australian patent system does not suffer from the biggest problems currently blighting the US system. In particular, there are no patent trolls operating here, and I am unaware of any Australian patent suit in which a non-practising entity has sought to restrain or tax the activities of an innovative operating Australian company. I once wrote an article on why I think the troll phemomenon is as American as apple pie!
Second, while the innovation patent system has been the subject of some criticism, and could certainly do with a few tweaks, by and large it has been working well for the smaller Australian companies and inventors it was designed to benefit. I have written about that as well.
It is ironic that while critics of the existing US patent system are calling for reforms including a shorter term for software patents, which are believed generally to involve lower levels of inventive merit, something like the Australian innovation patent is being touted as part of the problem, when in fact it might just be a pointer to a solution. If we took the basic concept, but gave it fewer 'teeth', e.g. a ban on injunctions, a limit on damages, etc, we might have something pretty well-aligned with the requirements for a more balanced software patent right.
Finally, that whole 'wheel' thing was beaten up out of all proportion. Thanks to some shameless self-promotion by the applicant, the story about getting a patent on the wheel was reproduced everywhere, generating the intended ridicule of the innovation patent system. What was not reported was that the Australian Commissioner of Patents exercised her power to review the patent, and revoked it just three months after it was filed (details here), thus proving that the system provides appropriate checks and balances where appropriate.
The problem here is largely on the Chinese side, not the Australian side. There might be something that could be done through diplomatic channels. And not issuing formal patent certificates on patents that have been through no more than a formalities check would help, also.
Mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patenting the wheel, and other myths
That's why I tried to state below (and seems my comment was highlighted above as a 'first word' comment) that the patent's in question are not standard patent's and there are benefits to them as well as major limitations when it comes to trying to enforce the patent.
Patents in Australia, especially the new patent reform that is currently about to happen, is totally different to the weirdness that is currently happening within the USA, which could be vastly improved with a bit of tort reform (ie: loser pays would be a great start).
I agree with yourself that the 'official' look & feel of the certificate needs to change to mitigate confusion, though the education of small business's with respect to patent law and what these innovation patents really mean with the ability to have them examined needs to be better and less onerous. The IP Australia information about them should have more information on how to challenge for a start.
Your suggestion for a Registration number is (and always has been) a good idea though there is an easy way to stop foreign parties taking out numerous and dubious innovation patents, especially since they were originally designed for SME's within Australia. Remove the ability for foreign companies to register them unless they have a provable, consistent, and historical (not less than 2-3yrs maybe) presence within Australia, otherwise some examination needs to occur before they will be allowed.
Or just remove "legal practitioner" from s210 :) Most solicitors I know turn white and instantly point towards a patent attorney at the mention of patents and the complexities involved and I don't blame them one little bit. I'll stick with Forensics and Digital Evidence with its 'normal' complexities under Australian and International law thank you very much ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patenting the wheel, and other myths
Oh, no, it's not. The Chinese obviously found the hole in your system, and are exploiting it.
Actually, the Chinese found the really big hole, and it turns out it's the patent system as a whole. They are now able to stifle innovation in a big style, in any country that adheres to international patent treaties, or that even HAS a patent system and allow . And, of course, they themselves can just ignore any foreign patents as they wish, to not enchain their own economy.
Besides; your advertisement of your system as "a more balanced software patent right" is absurd in the first place. Software, being math, is not patentable. Nowhere on earth. So there can't be any "software patent right", because patenting software is illegal anyway. I would suggest you fix the illegal doings of your patent office first, if they're granting software patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patenting the wheel, and other myths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patenting the wheel, and other myths
However, I must dispute that software is just math. Everything is "just math" when you boil away everything else. As a software engineer, and a laser physicist, I can speak with some knowledge of both subjects.
The idea of a patent system isn't the problem, it's what it's been turned into that is the problem. China is doing what the banks on Wall St and Broadway were doing. That is, finding loopholes and exploiting them, regardless of the costs to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they can be friends with the US, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiocy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiocy
Kind of makes you wonder how the brain truly works, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, I really hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding that, as if australia has set up a patent system that allows people to get patents without having them reviewed or looked over by someone... then this isn't a fault of china at all, but a well deserved 'reward' for such an insanely idiotic system.
At most I'd pity the innocent bystanders, business and buyer alike who will be hosed over by someone taking advantage of the broken system, but with a system like that in place it wasn't a question of if someone was going to take advantage of the glaring loophole, but when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The common response from those that denied anyone would misuse it is some form of "Why would anyone do that?!"
Lesson: Asshole humans exist. Plan for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These patent applications are only for 'innovation patents' which are strange beasties in that they:
* last for 8yrs only
* are designed to protect patents that don't meet the threshold within Australia for either inventiveness and/or manufacturing process's
* are designed to protect an incremental (slight some might say) advance on existing technology [ie: innovative not inventive]
* allows the patent holder (innovator) to protect each stage of development before final outcome is reached.
* Are VERY VERY cheap (approx $190US) to apply online for
* Get approved within weeks!
Yes I hear you all state WTF!!! That's amazing!! that would totally stop people copying and innovating etc.
Yes and No... That's where the problematical limitations of the innovation patent comes into play. You see if someone allegedly copies or otherwise the patent then if they want to take ANY legal action whatsoever then the innovation patent then needs to be fully examined and certified like any other normal patent first.
This basically means that if you try to enforce your patent through any means (including Cease &Desists) then you better be prepared to have the application fully vetted as per normal AND approved (with all ability to dispute by any party beforehand) before any court will grant you even a mention let alone a hearing. Also using the innovation in a way that claims it is a real patent could be actionable under our Competition and Consumer Act (ss52.
This doesn't mean that some small business operator could not be intimidated by the mention of "innovation patent" for some product if they didn't understand the law. And as Dr Summerfield also states the actual physical certificate looks too much like a standard patent certificate and could (and would) cause confusion and so needs to be changed to something less 'official' looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple had the same problem in Mexico and they cannot use the iPod name there either. The prefix of "i" is NOT Apple's invention worldwide.
Apple also had a problem with the trademarked term iView within Australia, though there is NOTHING they can do about it especially since it is owned by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) which is a government owned entity.
McDonald's, Microsoft, Campbells (Soup) and a miriad of other organisations (not just Apple) have this very us-centric view in regards to Trademarks (and patents.. though not so much) in that they think just becasue they own the Trademark in one country they by default can bully already legitimate users of the same trademark in the same class in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think Chinese companies file these "Innovation Patents" to exploit "incentives, subsidies, concessions", provided by the Chinese Government, and might even help them with local officials, by letting them show "good results".
Chinese Companies like innovation patents because 1. they are cheap, 2. look like the real thing, & can be used to meet state rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The amount of Patent Attorneys is bugger all compared to Practising Solicitors, and if you read the actual blog post by Dr Summerfield you would understand all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights + Patents =
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With China the issue is not patents; it is much bigger. Patents are only one weapon in total global war against the west.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps this is being confused with "Provisional Applications", which is nothing more than a "filing date" placeholder should a formal patent application later be filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course that's when the patent system actually was working and not being exploited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I may be mildly in the form of allowing patent trolling....but there are almost no restrictions in China involving that. The main part of the US system is Execution and how the invention handles. It is petty corporations like Google (bought up Motorola Mobility for the sole purpose of litigation against Microsoft), Apple (Apple vs Samsung...rounded corners), and Samsung (who has recently tried to assert a software patent against Apple over text to peach software patents).
Meanwhile in China...
The Arbiters and Judges and Debt Creditors are all the same people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What the fuck, how does that work? Wait, it can't. Next question : what does happen? There must be stories in that, that make the idiocies we read about here seem the result of thoughtful consideration.
Or is it all like when that cunt from the DHS or other jackboots U.S. agency pocketed a yacht for a typo in a customs form? And when the TPB censorship orders were issued by a textbook-corrupt judge in the Netherlands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Australia has a patent office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia has a patent office?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurd patents in Chinese
A display unit of a video control signal, characterized in that the pixels having the light-emitting element for emitting light, and said pixel circuit, the amount of the display device having a power supply is applied to the light-receiving element the luminescent signal scanningline select and for selected pixels sent to the default scan cycle pixels and the video signal supplied data lines of pixels by the light are arranged in a matrix pattern, for example, a display device, comprising: The amount of luminescence detection unit is configured to be able to detect a video signal in the light emission amount ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online Business Form
Need a website? Let's get started here:>> http://biizsearch.com/website-form/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]