Greater China outnumbers German patents

[TruthSeeker]

Well, there are several issues here. I think patents must be a relatively new equity for China. How strong will the Chinese courts support the concept of a patent as an intellectual "property"? Will they allow a foreign inventor/patent owner to prevail over a Chinese company that is infringing the foreigner's patent? What role will GoC financial ownership or support of research play? In the USA if the US Government supports financially work that becomes a patent, then the use of that invention becomes "free" to the US Government and any vendor it chooses. So, the 1400% increase in Chinese patent applications may be the first wave of inventors/companies hedging their bets to see if China is really going to protect intellectual property. Companies may figure they better file and see.

If patents are meaningfully enforced in a country, then the numbers of filed and issuing patents becomes a meaningful "proxy" measure for innovation in that country's market. But, because patenting is itself expensive, this track record of patent value or necessity has to be established before it is a useful measure of commercially important technical activity and prowess.

IMHO, TS

 

[Speeder]

This article reports on the chemistry patents filed with the Chinese patent office. It does not say the nationality of the filing inventors or assignees. I don't know the strength of the Chinese system. That is, how effectively inventions are examined or how well inventors rights are enforced by Chinese courts. However, now that China is in the WTO and is becoming such an important market, it may be that all chemical companies, worldwide, now file their inventions in China as well as the US, EU, Japan, SK and TW. It would make sense. If China really does enforce its own granted patents, then a USA company may be able to gain control over its inventions in China, against Chinese copycats, for a change!

I believe that as the ultimate authority on Chemistry-related info research, CAS is professional enough to easily distinguish which part has been filed by non-Chinese origin, and which part belongs to Resident Patent Filings hence could be credited to Chinese origin, isn't it, especially when CAS wanted to make such an important claim?

 

[TruthSeeker]

The United States is the biggest international collaborator with China, with 39,000 Chinese papers suggesting collaboration with U.S. researchers, or 8.9 percent of China's total. Japanese collaborations came next with 3 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...46142320091102

Perhaps the US and China are destined to become good friends because both are very "practical" people. That is, while we have different concepts of individual liberty, today, both are anxious to improve themselves and their "companies", and are not afraid of change. Perhaps, as China further becomes integrated into the world commercial system, it will also care about international peace and stability. Perhaps the Chinese people will also care more about personal freedom as they satisfy their more urgent Maslovian needs.

 

[Speeder]

Well, there are several issues here. I think patents must be a relatively new equity for China. How strong will the Chinese courts support the concept of a patent as an intellectual "property"? Will they allow a foreign inventor/patent owner to prevail over a Chinese company that is infringing the foreigner's patent? What role will GoC financial ownership or support of research play? In the USA if the US Government supports financially work that becomes a patent, then the use of that invention becomes "free" to the US Government and any vendor it chooses. So, the 1400% increase in Chinese patent applications may be the first wave of inventors/companies hedging their bets to see if China is really going to protect intellectual property. Companies may figure they better file and see.

If patents are meaningfully enforced in a country, then the numbers of filed and issuing patents becomes a meaningful "proxy" measure for innovation in that country's market. But, because patenting is itself expensive, this track record of patent value or necessity has to be established before it is a useful measure of commercially important technical activity and prowess.

IMHO, TS

You seem out of touch! Go check out WIPrg website, the same pattern there. In patents world, there is a simple term called "Residents Patent Filings" to seperate patents filed by domestic native residents from those filed by multi-national foreign sources based in countries where Patent Offices are located.

No professional organisation makes a gross claim without detailing the two sources. If they don't explicitly explain it, as CAS did, then they're already taken into considerations by default as it should be, so that one just has to take their claims / conclusions for granted in all cases. No funny IMO or IMHO stuffs involved. They do this for living, for God's sake!

 

[TruthSeeker]

I believe that as the ultimate authority on Chemistry-related info research, CAS is professional enough to easily distinguish which part has been filed by non-Chinese origin, and which part belongs to Resident Patent Filings hence could be credited to Chinese origin, isn't it, especially when CAS wanted to make such an important claim?

Well, what can I say? I went to the link. Here is what it says:

Columbus, Ohio (November 23, 2009) - Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), the global expert on chemical information, reports that China's patent office is now the world's leading producer of patent invention applications in chemistry. China trailed Japan's patent office, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for more than a decade, but passed the USPTO in 2005, WIPO in 2006, and exceeded Japan for the first time on a monthly basis in 2008. In 2009, China will record an entire year as the number one producer of chemical patents, and CAS projects that trend to continue.


This paragraph is silent about the nationalities of the inventors. It is merely reporting the numbers of patent applications filed by anybody. Down farther, as Martian2 points out there is something about the portion of the drug related applicants that are Chinese. So, my guess is that as many as 50% of the patent activity reported by CAS may be Chinese nationals, but not 100%.

Also, the purpose of the CAS "claim" was just to inform their clients that CAS "covers" the Chinese patent office and that such coverage is important to their prospective clients. So buy our service! They were not trying to make any point about how great Chinese inventors are or are not.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You seem out of touch!

No funny IMO or IMHO stuffs involved. They do this for living, for God's sake![/B]

Don't be such a jerk.......

 

[Speeder]

Don't be such a jerk.......

wtf ???

CAS has made a professional claim that China will be the world #1 in Chemistry patent fillings in 2009. You have an issue with it and keep picking bones from an egg.

I gave u the proper explaination. CAS did it just as a math professor tells you 2+3=5. Take it as it is and end of the story!

You seem still can't swallow your jealousy with your IMHOs... What, you happen to be another currymuncher under the fake US flag, as plenty others in the forum?

 

[TruthSeeker]

wtf ???

CAS has made a professional claim that China will be the world #1 in Chemistry patent fillings in 2009. You have an issue with it and keep picking bones from an egg.

I gave u the proper explaination. CAS did it just as a math professor tells you 2+3=5. Take it as it is and end of the story!

You seem still can't swallow your jealousy with your IMHOs... What, you happen to be another currymuncher under the fake US flag, as plenty others in the forum?

You really are a jerk who cannot read a CAS press release and understand it. Read it again and tell me where it says that all those chemistry applications were by Chinese national inventors.

 

[Speeder]

You really are a jerk who cannot read a CAS press release and understand it. Read it again and tell me where it says that all those chemistry applications were by Chinese national inventors.

You are obviously from a slow-reading class!

No need to read details, genius, as my analogies above already showed: If China were not the #1 in chemistry patents as CAS claims ( or in other words, X% of them were from foerign origin; and after taking them out, China would not be #1 as you implied) when it caculates the rankings, this kind of controversy from the 2nd place Japan and 3rd place USA would have already turned CAS upside down before it released this claim !

A simple logic! Clear enough once and for all ?

 

[Martian2]

Perhaps the US and China are destined to become good friends because both are very "practical" people. That is, while we have different concepts of individual liberty, today, both are anxious to improve themselves and their "companies", and are not afraid of change. Perhaps, as China further becomes integrated into the world commercial system, it will also care about international peace and stability. Perhaps the Chinese people will also care more about personal freedom as they satisfy their more urgent Maslovian needs.

I couldn't agree with you more. Both Americans and Chinese are exceedingly pragmatic. As we have seen, their scientists are both very curious.

American inventions of radio, telephone, television, computers, etc. are world-renowned. There is no dispute that America is the most creative society in history.

Lesser-known today is that China was once also a very creative country. See Four Great Inventions of ancient China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or the more thorough chronicles of Joseph Needham at Joseph Needham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 1943, Needham with an international team of collaborators, started a project to study the science and civilisation of ancient China. This project produced a series of volumes titled Science and Civilisation in China (SCC) published by the Cambridge University Press. The project is now proceeding under the guidance of the Publications Board of the Needham Research Institute, chaired by Christopher Cullen.[4]

The massive project produced a series of volumes under Needham's direct supervision; and the regular production of further volumes continued after his death in 1995. Successive volumes have been published as they became ready, which means that they have not appeared in the order originally contemplated in the project's prospectus—see Needham's SCC organizating scheme:

* Vol. I. Introductory Orientations
* Vol. II. History of Scientific Thought
* Vol. III. Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and Earth
* Vol. IV. Physics and Physical Technology
* Vol. V. Chemistry and Chemical Technology
* Vol. VI. Biology and Biological Technology
* Vol. VII. The Social Background"

I believe that American values of Puritanism and Chinese values of Confucianism are similar. The precept is the same: "Hard work is its own reward." I, too, am convinced that Americans and Chinese are "destined to become good friends."

 

[TruthSeeker]

A simple logic! Clear enough once and for all ?

A very stupid analysis. You obviously cannot understand the plain meaning of the English prose contained in the CAS link. I am so sorry for your ignorance. I realize that English is, for me, my native language and that you are greatly disadvantaged in having to understand and communicate everything here in English. So, perhaps, allowances could be made, if you weren't so stubborn in your ignorance. I am even sorrier that your mother did not teach you decent manners.

 

[Speeder]

A very stupid analysis. You obviously cannot understand the plain meaning of the English prose contained in the CAS link. I am so sorry for your ignorance. I realize that English is, for me, my native language and that you are greatly disadvantaged in having to understand and communicate everything here in English. So, perhaps, allowances could be made, if you weren't so stubborn in your ignorance. I am even sorrier that your mother did not teach you decent manners.

Manners ? How dare you you little pri*k talking about manners while writing in such a nasty manner you do, repeatedly calling me names after completely losing your skewed-up argument?

English your native tongue? LMAO, yeah right! if that's so, what about your Hindi, ehm? Now that's called pathetic !

And in your dreams, you must also have white skin and address amongst you fellow slumdogs "Mr. Mcdonald and Mr. Robertson, Sir ! ", huh?

Before trying to feel somthing for other people, you nasty piece of work, why don't you get your own sorry mother out of street first?

"greatly disadvantaged in English " ? LOL, this is just such a priceless and time-proven expression in juniors' textbook, reflecting another typical trait of low IQ slumdog mentality !

 

[Martian2]

I made this exact same post listing the patents granted by the US Patent Office and the comment about Taiwanese companies operating on Mainland China. I regret making the identical post on the "World Affairs Board." The idea of soliciting more opinions from people to gain greater insight into a topic sounds logical. However, it was based on the erroneous assumption that forumites on the World Affairs Board were rational human beings. I finally got "fed up" with their ridiculousness. I have enclosed a reproduction of my post for your amusement.

"Thank you very much. I was beginning to think that I was crazy. Finally, somebody who understands that I'm not trying to say anything political.

The proposition seemed simple: 18,000 Taiwanese factories on Mainland China, with an investment of 150 to 200 billion US dollars (depending on which business magazines that you read) that generate $610.6 billion US dollars of Chinese high-tech exports based on the strength of the combined Greater China patents, which outnumbers Germany.

Agree or disagree?

Instead of the spirited and interesting discussion on patents that I had expected, I received a lot of strange responses.

1) silly pictures about a wrestler and milk in Canada
2) claim that patents have no effect on economic growth
3) claims that IMF and UN are "worthless organizations"
4) lots of "horse puckey"
5) something about royalty flows
6) may not use forum taboo word "Greater China" despite the fact that everyone else in the world uses the phrase
7) despite its worldwide popularity, strong belief in forum that Wikipedia is bull****
8) despite two denials, continued accusations of Taiwan's political status
9) something about patent transference and ethnicity

Did I neglect to mention someone's whackiness in this thread? This is a very bizarre forum. I'm going to be laughing pretty hard for a long time to come. It's like the denizens of a cloistered forum have lost the capability to communicate with a normal rational human being."

 

[TruthSeeker]

Manners ? How dare you you little pri*k talking about manners while writing in such a nasty manner you do, repeatedly calling me names after completely losing your skewed-up argument?

My, my. You do have a very nasty mouth. "skewed-up argument"? MY, my.