Greater China (14,351 U.S. patents) beats Germany again in 2011!

[Roybot]

That's US patents, not WIPO patents, which are much more important.

l

If its so unimportant why start this thread for then?

As for the Chinese WIPO patents there are lot of questions being raised about the quality of those patents.

Innovation in China: Patents, yes; ideas, maybe | The Economist

Yet there are reasons for scepticism. The bureaucrats in Chinese patent offices are paid more if they approve more patents, say local lawyers. That must tempt them to say yes to ideas of dubious originality. And the generosity of China’s incentives for patent-filing may make it worthwhile for companies and individuals to patent even worthless ideas. “Patents are easy to file,” says Tony Chen, a patent attorney with Jones Day in Shanghai, “but gems are hard to find in a mountain of junk.”

This probably explains why none of the Chinese companies made it to the top innovators list, despite the volume they produce.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

If its so unimportant why start this thread for then?

As for the Chinese WIPO patents there are lot of questions being raised about the quality of those patents.

Innovation in China: Patents, yes; ideas, maybe | The Economist

I didn't start this thread did I? You really think all Chinese are robots and think the same?

 

[Nan Yang]

Top 100 most valuable brands.

12 Brands are from China.

 

[Martian2]

At Roybot, you're in deep denial. Everyone else can see the incorporation of Huawei patents in their exciting new products.

----------

Huawei unveils world’s thinnest smartphone

Huawei P1S Smartphone is Crazy Thin - Technabob

"Huawei P1S Smartphone is Crazy Thin
January 9th, 2012 by: Shane McGlaun

If you like your smartphones to have cool features and a cool design, the new Huawei Ascend P1 S might get your motor revving. The smartphone is hailed as the “world’s thinnest” and I can believe it at 6.68mm thick. You could stand that thing up sideways and have a hard time finding it.

(Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the world's thinnest smartphone...the Huawei Ascend P1 S!)

The smartphone runs Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich and has Gorilla Glass over the top to make it stronger. The screen is 4.3-inches wide and has 960 x 540 resolution. The processor is a dual-core 1.5GHz TI OMAP 4460. The smartphone runs an 1800mAh battery and should last a long time. The device is not that wide either at 64.8mm.

The P1S smartphone will be offered in white, black, and pink colors. The rear camera is an 8MP unit and the front is a 1.3MP camera. The rear camera can capture 1080p video. If this thing floats your boat, it will hit the US in April. What carrier will have it and how much it will cost are unknown."

 

[Roybot]

At Roybot, you're in deep denial. Everyone else can see the incorporation of Huawei patents in their exciting new products.

Yeah right. Look am not saying that there is no innovation coming out of China, of course there is. But to relate the number of patents to innovation is misleading, at least in the case of China anyways.

Majority of the Chinese patents are dubious in nature.

What is behind the recent Chinese patent explosion? Is China transitioning rapidly from imitating technology to producing genuine innovation? What impact does the patent explosion have on the Chinese economy and on the rest of the world?

While answers to these questions are of immediate concern to policy makers in China and beyond, their empirical investigation has to date been severely hampered by data limitations: there were no data available for Chinese firms that included companies’ actual patents filings. We overcomethis constraint and construct a dataset that contains domestic (SIPO) as well as US (USPTO) patentfilings by about 20,000 manufacturing firms registered in China. We employ the data to chart thedevelopments from 1985-2006 and to investigate the factors associated with the Chinese patent explosion during the period 1999-2006.

Our answer to what lies behind the Chinese patent explosion is unambiguous: a handful of companies in the ICT sector account for the overwhelming share of patents, with concentration more pronounced in USPTO than SIPO filings. These companies are very large, relatively young, more R&D intensive, and strongly export-oriented, in short: true global players. For these companies, a substantial share of patents covers product innovation albeit of relatively low-tech character.

Process innovations and combinations of product and process innovation covered by patents held by thesecompanies appear to be technologically more innovative and potentially valuable. Hence, our results suggest that these few, highly patent-active companies are not merely ‘innovation castles in theair’, inflated by Chinese public policy directed at increased patenting, but (at least to some degree) innovative companies highly integrated into the global economy.

Does this imply, there is evidence for wider technological take-off among Chinese companies? Our analysis suggests most likely not: patenting is concentrated in very few industries and even within these is undertaken by very few albeit highly active companies.

Yet, this conclusion is subject to the caveat that our sample covers only about 20,000 manufacturing companies. Referring back to our introductory remarks on the ‘Red Queen Run’ vs. the ‘Middle Income Trap’ arguments, ouranalysis suggests that reality most likely lies between these two extremes. Contrary to a genuine ‘Red Queen Run,’ some Chinese companies appear to be truly innovative, potentially even pushing the global technology frontier in certain niches. At the same time, there are very few such companies,and some of the most active among them are foreign-invested. Most companies are thus likely to concentrate on incremental process innovation rather than the generation of ‘new-to-the-world’ innovation.

What is the likely impact of the patent explosion? In our view, it points to China becoming an economy that competes not only on cheap labour and sheer scale, but also in terms of innovation.However, not unlike other successful Asian economies,44 there are at present very few such companies driving this development.

http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/news/events_files/Eberhardt_Paper.pdf​

 

[The SC]

This information is true for US delivered patents, it does not mean it includes all the inventions of the world, only a fraction which is useful in commercial applications.
Most advanced nations have secret inventions in many fields and they keep them for themselves !!!

 

[rcrmj]

This information is true for US delivered patents, it does not mean it includes all the inventions of the world, only a fraction which is useful in commercial applications.
Most advanced nations have secret inventions in many fields and they keep them for themselves !!!

it is true those patents are mostly for utilities and in commerical sense, a lot of countries do not patent their defense, space or super computer new technologies.

However, it is the fair way to judge a country's technological capability, as in order to be a top player you need to know the basic

 

[Fantasy]

China have already escaped the middle income trap? How did you come to that conclusion when they have barely touched the middle income level, many will argue they are not even in the middle income level yet? Pride is one thing, triumphalism is another, no doubt Huawei is one of the shinning light in Chinese innovation but China is only just progressing towards middle income level, after that there will be a host of other problems from which to deal with, escaping the middle income trap is far from the minds any of the top Chinese brass mind at the moment i guarantee you. It is maintaining social stability and a stable economic growth, which generates more wealth for funding into strategic programs and largely state own companies, some have been a success, some have been a setback, like the Chinese auto industry and electrical cars effort which had seen some major setbacks at the moment. As i said barring some major technological breakthrough in the future that will reduce our dependency of fossil fuels, human labor, and other depleting raw materials and many other external and internal factors, it will be impossible, i repeat impossible for China to become a high income country at least where superficial wealth comparison is concerned. Barring any major technological innovation in this direction it will be impossible, not now, not in the future, not ever. But let's all assume an over optimistic line and say perhaps someday the world will attain technological breakthroughs that will solve all our current roadblocks, and uplift the standard of living in the world immensely, then we will still have to deal with the issue of high low income gap, because the wealth exchanges will still follow the dynamics of today, nothing changes, only thing that can change this mindset is a perception of what wealth actuality is, to most people, they are food, shelter, health, family, lifestyle, security. I am more concern about whether China can continue to be remain as a high stability country and maintaining a slow and steady pattern of sustainable growth, while transitioning smoothly to a more consumer based society because of the necessary economic restructuring to come. Those are of far more important to the security of the country than being obsessed with income figures, that is a money obsessed mentality with no practicality whatsoever, don't forget Greece is also a high income country, but does it really matter in any practical sense apart from stocking some silly little egotistical pride? No, it don't.

 

[Martian2]

At Fantasy, I project China will escape the "middle income" trap based on the historical experience of Taiwan.

Taiwanese nominal GDP per capita has already exceeded US $20,000. It should be approximately $30,000 in five years. By most definitions, Taiwan has escaped the "middle income" trap.

Similarly, Chinese GDP per capita has already exceeded $5,000. In the next five years or so, Chinese GDP per capita is expected to approach $10,000. This is pretty solid performance to predict that China will also escape the "middle income" trap.

The reason Taiwan (and later China) can escape the "middle income" trap is due to the constant improvement in Taiwanese and mainland Chinese technological capability, which is evident in the number of annual U.S. (or international) patents granted.

A less scientific method is to look at high-tech Chinese export products like ARJ-21 commercial jets, Chinese cars sold in Latin America, or billions of dollars in exports of Huawei telecom equipment to the rest of the world. The evidence is there if you are willing to open your eyes.

Taiwan shows the way. In 2011, Taiwanese nominal GDP per capita was $21,592. In five years, Taiwanese nominal GDP per capita should exceed $30,000. Taiwan has proven it has moved beyond the "middle income" level. (See primary IMF data in footnote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...er_capita#IMF_estimates_between_2010_and_2016)

Nominal Chinese GDP per capita shows unrelenting growth. In 2011, Chinese GDP per capita exceeded $5,000. In five to seven years, Chinese GDP per capita should hit the $10,000 mark. All indications show that China should follow in Taiwan's footsteps and escape the "middle income" trap.

 

[Fantasy]

I project that China will escape the "middle income" trap based on the historical experience of Taiwan.

Taiwanese nominal GDP per capita has already exceeded $20,000. It should be approximately $30,000 in five years. By most definitions, Taiwan has escaped the "middle income" trap.

Similarly, Chinese GDP per capita has already exceeded $5,000. In the next five years or so, Chinese GDP per capita is expected to approach $10,000. This is pretty solid performance to predict that China will escape the "middle income" trap.

Taiwan shows the way. In 2011, Taiwanese nominal GDP per capita was $21,592. In five years, Taiwanese nominal GDP per capita should exceed $30,000. Taiwan has proven it has moved beyond the "middle income" level.

(insert chart for China)

Again barring a major technological leap that changes the way in which we use energy, massive allocation of human labor, and replacing other depleting raw materials, China with a population of 1.4 billion will never escape the middle income trap, our current technology and the way it is utilize is simply not enough to support another 2 billion high income folks, based on your superficial income standards. Not scientifically possible, not humanly possible. Taiwan being a high income nation is possible as i said earlier piggybacking on China's dynamism but China don't have to follow the Taiwan model, Taiwan will be piggybacking on China to achieve their superficial holy grail possibly in the next 2 decades or so if everything goes smoothly, then within two decades without any major technological breakthrough, we will see China experiencing what other developed nations are now experiencing, they will have increasingly slower growth, and will be accelerated by the increasing shortage of fossil fuels and aging population, without a technological breakthrough this is an inevitability for all nations not just China, China might grow old before they get rich, if you take that as a very likely fact, and let go of your superficial ego, you will be fine with it, if you want to take it as an insult that live your life miserably, because that is a likely outcome facing all everyone. China should develop sustainably just like anyone else and not develop irresponsibly based on any superficial measurement of wealth. Power and wealth will still be concentrated in a few, today or 20 years from today, these things will never change.

 

[The SC]

Artificial finances is the term, and it leads to artificial life styles in general which was behind the downfall of every civilisation known on earth, short of a natural catastrophe.

 

[Martian2]

World Bank classifies Taiwan as a high-income country

According to World Bank data, The Economist diagram (see below) shows Taiwan was one of the lucky 13 countries to escape the "middle income" trap by 2008. Today, Taiwan is classified by the World Bank as a high-income country.

If you look at the diagram closely, you can see that China will soon escape the "middle-income" trap in the next ten years. The IMF projects Chinese nominal GDP per capita will hit almost $10,000 in five years. $12,000 is usually the accepted upper limit for the "middle income" trap. If a country can move beyond $12,000 per capita then it is about to join the rich club.

Focus: The middle-income trap | The Economist

The middle-income trap

Mar 27th 2012, 19:00 by The Economist online

The forces of economic convergence are powerful, but not all powerful. Poor countries tend to grow faster than rich ones, largely because imitation is easier than invention. But that does not mean that every poor country of five decades ago has caught up, as today’s chart shows. It plots each country’s income per person (adjusted for purchasing power) relative to that of America, both in 1960 and in 2008. The chart appeared in the World Bank's recent China 2030 report. If every country had caught up, they would all be found in the top row. In fact, most countries that were middle income in 1960 remained so in 2008 (see the middle cell of the chart). Only 13 countries escaped this middle-income trap, becoming high-income economies in 2008 (top-middle). One of these success stories, it should not be forgotten, was Greece.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Again barring a major technological leap that changes the way in which we use energy, massive allocation of human labor, and replacing other depleting raw materials, China with a population of 1.4 billion will never escape the middle income trap, our current technology and the way it is utilize is simply not enough to support another 2 billion high income folks, based on your superficial income standards. Not scientifically possible, not humanly possible. Taiwan being a high income nation is possible as i said earlier piggybacking on China's dynamism but China don't have to follow the Taiwan model, Taiwan will be piggybacking on China to achieve their superficial holy grail possibly in the next 2 decades or so if everything goes smoothly, then within two decades without any major technological breakthrough, we will see China experiencing what other developed nations are now experiencing, they will have increasingly slower growth, and will be accelerated by the increasing shortage of fossil fuels and aging population, without a technological breakthrough this is an inevitability for all nations not just China, China might grow old before they get rich, if you take that as a very likely fact, and let go of your superficial ego, you will be fine with it, if you want to take it as an insult that live your life miserably, because that is a likely outcome facing all everyone. China should develop sustainably just like anyone else and not develop irresponsibly based on any superficial measurement of wealth. Power and wealth will still be concentrated in a few, today or 20 years from today, these things will never change.

You have to be careful about what income actually is.

Money can represent an absolute claim on a unit energy. Or it can be a number used for measuring relative claims on energy (which is totally different).

It's perfectly possible for China to be a high income nation in the 2nd case - everyone else gets poorer as China rises, and then both levels will converge. High income will be redefined in that case to be something much different from today. It may consist of owning an electric rickshaw instead of 5 BMWs, but that'd be much better than the "low income" nations who ride donkeys.

 

[ironman]

Under the "One China" policy, all major and middle-sized countries in the world agree that mainland China and Taiwan are one nation. Your attempt to distinguish between ethnic Chinese people on Taiwan and mainland China is baseless.

----------

"One China" Policy

The One China situation of Mainland China and Taiwan must be looked at in the proper historical and current world context. As former President Jiang Zemin said to President Bill Clinton, Mainland China views Taiwan as being analogous to the American Civil War. For fifty years after the civil war in 1949, Taiwan had always unanimously agreed that the Chinese Civil War was unfinished. For decades, the KMT plotted to retake Mainland China by military force.

However, in the last ten years, the bad DPP party decided to push for Taiwanese independence. You cannot just walk away from a fifty-year civil war and unilaterally declare that it is over. Just like the American Civil War, secession is not recognized unless the whole country agrees to it. Secession is illegal. Similarly, Taiwan may not secede from China. The Chinese Civil War is unfinished.

In 1971, Taiwan was ejected from the U.N., because the world only recognizes one legitimate seat at the U.N. for China. The U.N. and the world agree with Mainland China that it is the sole representative of China and Taiwan. Hence, the consistent pledges of adherence to the "One China" principle by every major country in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...Resolution_2758

"United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971 recognized the representatives of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek "from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations".[1]"

U.S. reaffirms commitment to one-China policy - People's Daily Online

"U.S. reaffirms commitment to one-China policy
08:11, March 30, 2010

The United States on Monday reaffirmed its commitment to the one-China policy, saying that it' s a commitment that should be the bedrock of the foundation of its relationship with China.

"The U.S. position on one-China policy is unchanged," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said at a briefing at the Foreign Press Center in downtown Washington D.C.."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/21/...in1426114.shtml

"Mar 21, 2006 ... Russia, China Pledge Closer Ties ... "Russia will continue the policy supporting 'one China' declared by the Chinese government ... and ..."

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_...n/er/111567.pdf

"Nov 30, 2009 ... The EU reaffirmed its commitment to one China policy and ... follow-up EU-China NZEC project, and the pledge by the European Commission ..."

http://nigeria2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/Chi...0204389659.html

"Feb 16, 2007 ... China, Japan pledge to strengthen defense exchanges ... He noted that the Japanese government has always supported the one-China policy. ..."

http://www.twocircles.net/2008jan14/india_...ooperation.html

"Jan 14, 2008 ... India, China Pledge To Promote Nuclear Cooperation ... New Delhi declared its adherence to "one China" policy and Beijing supported India's ..."

This is the lamest excuse I ever heard...

What is One China Policy ?

One-China policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The One-China policy refers to the policy or view that there is only one state called "China", despite the existence of two governments that claim to be "China". As a policy, this means that countries seeking diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC) must break official relations with the Republic of China (ROC), and vice versa

As a Taiwanese, Martian2 you should aware of the basics of One China policy

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Yeah right. Look am not saying that there is no innovation coming out of China, of course there is. But to relate the number of patents to innovation is misleading, at least in the case of China anyways.

Majority of the Chinese patents are dubious in nature.



http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/news/events_files/Eberhardt_Paper.pdf​

I dispute that article. I do not know of any foreign invested companies in China that have significant intellectual property coming out of China. If they did, their profit margins and value added would be higher than domestic firms. But that is not the case - the value added of foreign invested firms in electronics in China is much lower than domestic firms, even as early as 2005.

Electronics industry in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The total ratio of value added for foreign firms in China is 20.9%, however, which is far behind the 27.6% ratio of local firms.

Also, I find it funny that Israel can claim to be "innovative" when the most innovative companies in Israel are IBM, Microsoft, and other "foreign invested firms" and not domestic Israeli firms. I find it funny that Indians are talking about innovation when tiny Israel, despite its most innovative companies being foreign, STILL beats India!