Slashdot Mirror


China Leads In Graphene Patent Applications

hackingbear writes According to British patent consultancy CambridgeIP, China has filed for more than 2,200 graphene patents, the most of any country, followed by the U.S. with more than 1,700 patents, and South Korea with just under 1,200 patents. In terms of institutions, Samsung, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, and IBM lead the way of number of patent filing on this futurist materials with seemingly unlimited potentials, followed by Qinghua University of China. As China's moving its economy to be more innovation based and strengthening its IP laws, American companies will perhaps soon be at the receiving ends of patent law suits.

24 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Well that explains by SourceFrog · · Score: 2

    why development has stagnated on this 'wonder material'. Patents are killing innovation and development. This is an insane number of patents .. pretty much nobody can realistically develop any graphene-based products and navigate this patent minefield.

    --
    My other UID is three digits.
    1. Re:Well that explains by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, in 20 years or so there won't be a single valid patent :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Well that explains by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Letters patent, the predecessor to patents, came about more or less as a way of rewarding those who won the favor of the reigning monarch or collecting income without a visible tax. This was a time period before anything resembling modern economics, game theory, or psychology, so it would be quite an oddity if such an institution were to actually succeed in accomplishing a task as complicated as increasing the rate of innovation. It'd be roughly on par with a chimp constructing a nuclear bomb.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  2. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by JosKarith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only ones to get rich will be the lawyers.
    Who drafted all these laws in the first place...

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  3. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by SourceFrog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's time to abolish patents completely.

    Ten, twenty years ago we were hearing all about this 'wonder material' .. then suddenly we stopped hearing much at all, and didn't really see applications come to market. Now we know why. It's been all but killed by this patent minefield. Your children someday might have a terminal illness that could have been cured by some graphene-based medical product? Sorry, they must rather die so that the corporations who control these patents and patent lawyers can sit on the tech forcibly preventing anyone else from benefiting from it. We could help green deserts and make new regions of the planet liveable with cheaper desalination? Sorry, that must be killed by patents. Cheaper solar? Kill it. Potential electronics applications? Kill it.

    Unless we abolish patents, our children and grandchildren are going to be living in a world that is scarcely more technically advanced than our own is now.

    Even patent attorneys are starting to agree that patents are not or are no longer encouraging innovation, are stifling it, and are imposing a great cost burden on us, both financially and in terms of being robbed of our 'jetson's future'.

    This is also the reason we've stopped seeing much real innovation or cost reductions in smartphone development: "There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today"

    Study: Patent Trolls Cost Companies $29 Billion Last Year (that's a conservative estimate)

    There is no way to "reform" this system. It's non-reformable as it's intrinsically unethical. It should be thrown out entirely.

    --
    My other UID is three digits.
  4. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2
    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. Why even pay attention? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China doesn't pay any attention to trademark, copyright, or patent law.

    Why should anyone pay attention to their trademark, copyright, or patent applications? Or grants? They should just be round-filed until China takes on the concept of intellectual property. Not that I'm so in love with the whole idea myself, but there still nothing which is not hypocritical about the nation of China expecting us to give a shit about their IP.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Why even pay attention? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't worry, the US are similarly ignoring patents when it is in the "national interest", you should be careful when casting stones, might destroy your own glasshouse.

      And likewise, don't worry, as soon as China holds a lot of important patents they will instantly start not only honoring patents and IP but becomes one of the strongest advocates of it. They would be the first that don't turn from copycat to IP zealot as soon as it becomes more profitable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need to distinguish between a discovery and an invention, and prevent patenting the former. You shouldn't be able to patent graphene, as it is a discovery. If you invent a clever way to manufacture it cheaply, than you should be able to patent that method as it is an invention. Also, if you bring a lawsuit against someone for patent infringement and you lose, you should be executed.

  7. Complete lack of US involvement by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Note that the US is not directly involved in any of the major patent holdings. IBM is not really a US company anymore. They are "international". To a great extent they are getting out of the US. A few year ago they stopped listing their employment by country, because they wanted to hide what they were doing. So if there is ever a situation where US interests collide with IBM economic interests then the US will get the short end of the stick.

    This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Complete lack of US involvement by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Note that the US is not directly involved in any of the major patent holdings. IBM is not really a US company anymore. They are "international". To a great extent they are getting out of the US. A few year ago they stopped listing their employment by country, because they wanted to hide what they were doing. So if there is ever a situation where US interests collide with IBM economic interests then the US will get the short end of the stick.

      This is what happens when you let everything get privatized, including basic research. You end up with no stake in the future.

      The federal government shouldn't have a "stake in the future" They aren't qualified.

      This idea that government is some sort of benevolent wise-man on a throne, there to guide its naive flock to the promise land with a gentle hand and sage advice, needs to die. There are plenty of ways to get research funding that don't involve a trillion dollar bureaucracy.

    2. Re:Complete lack of US involvement by retchdog · · Score: 2

      oh, it'll just be a different trillion dollar bureaucracy, don't kid yourself. maybe a better one (or maybe worse, who really knows?), but it'll still be a bureaucracy with a shitton more money than most people could imagine.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:Complete lack of US involvement by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      This is just wrong. Basic R&D does not work for companies because it is not usually the the company that pays for the work that benefits from it. It's just too long term and the results are too unpredictable. Even the drug companies are finding R&D gives them questionable returns.

      Basic R&D is an external economy with a societal impact. The only way to get enough of it is to fund it across society as whole.

  8. Filed? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    Filed with whom? And where? Does this mean 2200 filings within the Chinese patent system? (cambridgeip.com is vulnerable to heartbleed bug and keeps telling me I need Javascript running even if I have it running.)

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  9. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by MacTO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I highly doubt that the solution is to abolish patents, though a great deal of patent reform is certainly necessary.

    What we should de doing is looking at when patents are and are not useful, and modifying patent law accordingly. A lot of the analysis should be fairly straight forward to do. Patents themselves have to be registered, so we have records. When patent disputes are taken to the courts, we have records. Many, if not most, of the businesses that license patents have to publish financial reports. (Again, there are records.)

    Questions can be asked and answered through all of that data. We can look at the optimal duration for patents for different sectors. We can look at what types of patents stimulate innovation, and what types of patents stifle innovation. We can even look at licensing practices in an effort to reduce the burden that patents place upon the courts.

    It isn't all or nothing. Patents are neither entirely good, nor entirely bad. We simply need a way to separate the good from the bad so that we can keep the former and discard the latter.

  10. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What would be the point? We have no real manufacturing capability, so we'd just end up sending the stolen back IP to China to be made into products.

  11. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by cavreader · · Score: 2

    Depending on what metrics you chose to use the US is still at or near the top of international rankings. The U.S. still remains the largest producer of advanced technology products, SO I say the US appears to have some manufacturing capability and that capability is growing stronger because the surge of domestic gas and oil is bringing down energy costs. There are foreign companies that are in the process of moving some of their manufacturing to the US because of the reduced energy costs and reduced shipping costs are balancing the higher labor costs. The only advantage China has had in growing their exports is cheap labor. Their economy was certainly not built on quality and innovation. Their success has resulted in it's workers agitating for more money plus they now have completion from the other emerging South East Asia countries who can match their labor costs. China has had to manipulate it's currency to keep it's export costs down and attract business but there are limits to the manipulation.

  12. How does a country lead in patents? by asylumx · · Score: 2

    Patents are implemented within a country, and then honored (or not honored) by other countries by means of treaties, right? So how has China "filed for" 2200 patents?

    1. Re:How does a country lead in patents? by asylumx · · Score: 2

      Either you misread my question, or I have no idea how I'm supposed to interpret your answer: If patents only apply to the country they are filed in, how did China file for 2200 patents? Do they really mean that Chinese companies filed for 2200 US patents? Or do they mean Chinese companies filed for 2200 Chinese patents? Samsung is a Korean company, as another comment mentioned, so the lawsuit you mentioned doesn't really make sense.

  13. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    There is no way to "reform" this system. It's non-reformable as it's intrinsically unethical.

    [citation needed]

    It should be thrown out entirely.

    Possibly true. Certainly true that only products should be patentable, and never business methods or technologies. Reducing the time scale on a patent significantly would also solve the problem. Meetings and bureaucracy aside, things happen much faster now so there is no good reason for a patent term to be so very long.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Re:So now we can steal their IP? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The U.S. still remains the largest producer of advanced technology products

    Like everything else, these are mostly produced in other countries and then assembled here. Only a small portion of the manufacturing is actually done here, but we take credit for the whole thing. If everyone did that, we could probably double the world's reported production, but it wouldn't actually result in anything more being produced. I like to point to my engine, which is an International-Navistar supposedly MADE IN 'MERICA but whose block was cast in China. And that's over a decade old.

    There are foreign companies that are in the process of moving some of their manufacturing to the US because of the reduced energy costs and reduced shipping costs are balancing the higher labor costs.

    A little bit of manufacturing, and a whole bunch of assembly. Most of the actual manufacturing is being done in China, then the parts get shipped over and assembled. Subaru might assemble an engine here in the USA, but they don't cast parts here, either. Etc. This practice is restricted to large and heavy items, predominantly automobiles. All the modules (relays, computers etc) are made in other countries, like China or Malaysia. The leather is imported. The metal is imported if it isn't virgin; we send our steel to other countries for recycling so that we can abstract away the pollution.

    China has had to manipulate it's currency to keep it's export costs down and attract business but there are limits to the manipulation.

    Only the fat cats at the top win a race to the bottom.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Reciprocity by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    I'm hoping the rest of the world ignores the Chinese Patents much like the Chinese ignore those of everybody else.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  16. How have you solved the free rider problem? by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's time to abolish patents completely.

    It's clear that the patent system has serious problems. Patents on software or algorithms or business methods are absurd. However before we go ahead and abolish patents altogether, what is your proposed alternative solution to the free rider problem? Patents were created as a means to mitigate that specific problem. If you have no alternative to solve the free rider problem that is better than a well executed patent system (our current one is not well executed), then your argument is a non-starter. If you do have a solution to the free rider problem then let us know so we can alert the Nobel committee that they owe you a prize.

    And before anyone says it, just abolishing patents and doing nothing else is NOT a better system even as screwed up as our patent system has become. If you need evidence of this, please show me how many inventions that would be patentable in the US or Europe that were invented in places without a patent system. Drugs, vehicles, integrated circuits, etc. You will find that places without something resembling a patent system also have a rather low rate of invention. While this is evidence based on a correlation, the correlation is VERY strong. Without some way to mitigate the free rider problem there is limited incentive to solve certain types of problems.

    Unless we abolish patents, our children and grandchildren are going to be living in a world that is scarcely more technically advanced than our own is now.

    Oh cut out the hyperbole. Technology is advancing very quickly even in the face of an arguably broken patent system. There is no evidence that our rate of technological advancement is slowing down.

    Study: Patent Trolls Cost Companies $29 Billion Last Year

    While I'm not arguing that patent trolls aren't a real problem (they are), $29 billion is pocket change compared to what companies made off of patented products last year. Intel alone had $52 billion in revenue last year, virtually all of it from patented products. Patented inventions account for literally Trillions of dollars of economic benefit to society, much of which would not exist without some sort of system resembling patents. For many types of inventions, it is virtually impossible to bring products to market in the face of the free rider problem. The solution to the free rider problem doesn't have to be patents in their current form but there does have to be some sort of solution to that problem. Simply tossing out patents without some alternative way to mitigate the free rider problem will almost certainly do more harm than good.

    1. Re:How have you solved the free rider problem? by m00sh · · Score: 2

      Patents were created as a means to mitigate that specific problem. If you have no alternative to solve the free rider problem that is better than a well executed patent system (our current one is not well executed), then your argument is a non-starter.

      Patents were not created for that purpose. From wikipedia,

      In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent", patents are intended to facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they might prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret.[citation needed] Awarding patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires, or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the patentee's invention is not lost to humanity.[29][specify]

      source

      The word "patent" itself means expose and make accessible. The patent system was created to spread information while keeping the inventor protected. Otherwise, the inventor would not share his method with anyone else.

      The free rider problem is a modern problem. The original intention of the patent system was not to solve the free rider problem.