January 1, 2011

When Innovation, Too, Is Made in China
By STEVE LOHR
NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/business/02unboxed.html?ref=business&src=me&pagewanted=print


AS a national strategy, China is trying to build an economy that relies 
on innovation rather than imitation. Clearly, its leaders recognize that 
being the world’s low-cost workshop for assembling the breakthrough 
products designed elsewhere — think iPads and a host of other high-tech 
goods — has its limits.

So can China become a prodigious inventor? The answer, in truth, will 
play out over decades — and go a long way toward determining not only 
China’s future, but also the shape of the global economy.

Clues to the Chinese approach emerge from a recent government document 
containing goals for drastically increasing the nation’s production of 
patents. It offers a telling glimpse of how China intends to engineer a 
more innovative society.

The document, published in November by the State Intellectual Property 
Office of China, is called the “National Patent Development Strategy 
(2011-2020).” It discusses broad economic objectives as well as specific 
targets to be attained by 2015.

In a recent interview, David J. Kappos, director of the United States 
Patent and Trademark Office, pointed to the Chinese targets for 2015 and 
called them “mind-blowing numbers.”

According to a translation of the document provided by the patent 
office, China’s goal for annual patent filings by 2015 is two million. 
That number includes “utility-model patents,” which typically cover 
items like engineering features in a product and are less ambitious than 
“invention patents.” In the American system, there are no utility patents.

In 2009, about 300,000 applications for utility patents were filed in 
China, roughly equal to its total of invention patents, which have been 
growing slightly faster than utility filings in recent years. But even 
if just half of China’s total filings in 2015 are for invention patents, 
the national plan calls for a huge leap, to one million, by 2015. By 
contrast, patent filings in the United States totaled slightly more than 
480,000 in the 12 months ended in September, according to the patent office.

China’s patent surge has been evident for years. In October, Thomson 
Reuters issued a research report, forecasting that China would surpass 
the United States in patent filings in 2011. “It’s happening even faster 
than we expected,” said Bob Stembridge, an intellectual-property analyst 
at Thomson Reuters.

Yet if the trend is not surprising, the ambition of the Chinese plan is 
striking. The document indicates, for example, that China intends to 
roughly double its number of patent examiners, to 9,000, by 2015. (The 
United States has 6,300 examiners.)

China also wants to double the number of patents that its residents and 
companies file in other countries. Recent Chinese filings in the United 
States, Mr. Kappos says, are mainly in fields that China has declared 
priorities for industrial strategy, including solar and wind energy, 
information technology and telecommunications, and battery and 
manufacturing technologies for automobiles.

To lift its patent count, China has introduced an array of incentives. 
They include cash bonuses, better housing for individual filers and tax 
breaks for companies that are prolific patent producers.

“The leadership in China knows that innovation is its future, the key to 
higher living standards and long-term growth,” Mr. Kappos says. “They 
are doing everything they can to drive innovation, and China’s patent 
strategy is part of that broader plan.”

China’s strategy is guided and sponsored by the state. Should that be a 
source of concern for the United States, and perhaps a trade issue? Or 
is the plan likely to resemble past efforts by other governments to give 
their companies an edge in global competition?

In the 1980s, the Japanese government was widely viewed as the master 
practitioner of industrial policy, and Japan Inc. seemed poised to 
overrun one American industry after another, including computers.

As we know, it didn’t turn out that way, partly because of steps taken 
by the American government and industry. A semiconductor trade agreement 
was intended to pry open the Japanese market, and I.B.M. invested in a 
crucial but then-struggling supplier, Intel.

More important, however, Japan never became a force in a particularly 
unruly, imaginative side of computing: writing software. Generalizations 
are risky, but it seems that Japan, as a society, has not produced 
enough of that kind of innovative skill, despite being a formidable 
patent generator. (In that area, Japan is still slightly ahead of the 
United States by some measures, though Japan’s patent filing pace is 
slowing.)

To call Japan’s industrial policy an outright failure would be 
simplistic. In some industries — autos, machine tools and consumer 
electronics, for example — it has done quite well.

“They are still in the game in those industries and going gangbusters — 
and we are not,” said Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr., president of the Economic 
Strategy Institute and a former United States trade negotiator. Still, 
just how strong a hand government policy had in those successes is open 
to debate.

The Chinese patent strategy document is filled with metrics, right down 
to goals for patents owned per million people. It speaks of an 
innovation-by-the-numbers mentality, much like a student who equates 
knowledge with scores on standardized tests.

“It is a brute-force approach at this stage, emphasizing the quantity of 
innovation assets more than the quality,” said John Kao, an innovation 
consultant to governments and corporations.

But it would be a mistake, Mr. Kao said, to assume that China will 
necessarily follow a path similar to Japan’s. China, he says, is not 
only much bigger than Japan, but it also has a more individualistic 
entrepreneurial society, despite its Communist government. Someday, he 
predicts, China will have its entrepreneurial equivalents of Steven P. 
Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg.

DESPITE China’s inevitable rise, Mr. Kao said, the United States has a 
comparative advantage because it is the country most open to innovation. 
“American culture, more than any other, forgives failure, tolerates risk 
and embraces uncertainty,” Mr. Kao says.

Many innovative products and technologies, he says, will be made 
elsewhere. “But America’s future lies in being the orchestrator — the 
systems integrator — of the innovation process,” Mr. Kao said. “Look at 
Silicon Valley. It is a place where smart people from all nations, all 
languages and all ethnic groups come together. It’s the capital of 
innovation assembly.”

-- 
========================================
George Antunes, Political Science Dept
University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204
Voice: 713-743-3923  Fax: 713-743-3927
Mail: antunes at uh dot edu

_______________________________________________
Medianews mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.etskywarn.net/mailman/listinfo/medianews

Reply via email to