Home Fire Alarm Systems

The New York Times has an opinion piece a little strange, written by Eamonn Fingleton, author of a book on how China will dominate the United States economically. That may be true, but it loped attempts the impossible to prove that China will be more innovative than the United States ... and use patents as a proxy:

Meanwhile, evidence of international patent applications is looking increasingly worrying. According to data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization, one of the world's most prolific international patents from 2011 contributor was ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications network. Their presentations were a staggering five times since 2009. Another Chinese company, Huawei, rose to third place in 2011. The only U.S. company to make the top 10 was Qualcomm.

First, the number of patent applications does not make sense. You can have a large number of patents and means absolutely nothing about innovation. First, the applications are different from patents. Second, and more importantly, patents show no relationship with innovation. Third, when it comes to patents in China, the Chinese have long understood that patents are not only a tool protectionist policies such as taxes that can be performed with less control or issues of trade war acted accordingly. Basically, there is nothing in the preceding paragraph, actually supports the argument Fingleton.

But then it becomes much more serious. He argues that the United States has somehow lower today than in the past (not), then cites another author patent system says that Apple and Microsoft are based on strong patents to survive when they started :

This is all the more disturbing that U.S. patent law has significantly weakened. Congress has made it much more difficult for small American inventors to protect their infringement of intellectual property theft.

Pat Choate, author of "Hot Property", a book about the theft of intellectual property, said that if the new patent regime existed when the companies Apple and Microsoft launched the first, never could have made out of the minors. His patents were violated predatory big business quickly, and instead participate in unequal legal battles against rivals with deep pockets and ruthless, have felt compelled to share his technology on concessional terms.

Almost nothing has been said above shows some resemblance to the truth. The patent system has not been "considerably weakened" at all. Congress has made some minor changes to the patent system, which do nothing to make it more difficult for "small inventors to protect their infringement of intellectual property theft."

regard to requests by Pat Choate, just left shaking my head. First, Apple and success stories of wine Microsoft copying the works of other businesses, large

when these companies do not recognize what they had in their hands, and more or less

leave
managed to take these ideas and run with them. In addition, in both cases, other bigger companies have come and try to copy them, and have not been as successful. In addition, more importantly, none of the aggressive companies based on patents to protect their works. Famousely Bill Gates has stated that about patents: Not exactly an example of Microsoft using patents to protect themselves, but rather the opposite. Apple, meanwhile, relied heavily on the ideas from Xerox and SRI making his first team - some of whom are allowed, and some that do not. However, most of the work has not been patented in many ways and while Apple has received a patent earlier, which did little to enforce patents to stop imitators (his most famous lawsuit against Microsoft for copying the Windows interface, based on copyright ... and did, anyway).
Find best price for : --Fingleton----Choate----Microsoft----Apple----China----Eamonn----Times--