Britain excels in motivating inventors
Motivating them not to invent anything.
Sources: The European Patent Office (PDF file) and Nationmaster (US Census Bureau, Population Division, International Programs Center)
Last again…ho hum.
posted by Deep Thunk @ 21:08
17 Comments:
Lets have a look at this data in a bit more detail shall we:
1. EPO data relates to national phases of European patents and Euro-PCTs i.e. does not include direct national filings.
2. The bottom of the chart has been cut off, distorting the appearance.
3. UK is 5th but not last in the EPO data indicated. Perhaps 5th out of the whole world isnt too bad.
4. Data only reflects applications and not granted patents. UK = quality over quantity.
5. Why are you apparently so bitter about the UK? Have you had a bad experience?
I’m more than happy to look at the data in a bit more detail.
1. According to data I’ve seen, the number of direct national filings has been falling for a number of years (e.g. see table 1 in the PCT chart data source).
2. It is routine to select chart ranges to highlight variations under inspection – charts printed in all of the national broadsheets use the same technique. If you would care to have every contemporary media outlet change their methods of communicating such data, I would also consider changing mine.
3. Using the EPO data the UK is 17th out of 32 in patents per capita. We are ahead of Italy, Cyprus, Slovenia, Spain Hungary, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Lithuania and Romania. I imagine we would be further down the list if the data included the “whole world”.
4. In my experience non PCT (i.e. UK only) patents are taken out for “vanity” or “performance indicator” purposes. This does not suggest to me that they are higher quality than international patents – quite the reverse, actually.
5. It gets quite tedious having inventions stolen – having an invention stolen then being gagged by the thief tends to make one quite grumpy.
I am an inventor from GB. I've never been able to get a patent, because what I've invented has already been patented. My newest idea, a way of making leaded lights with plastic clips instead of lead solder, can't be patented, because some American patented the idea of making leaded lights with clips. However I have never seen any examples of leaded lights made up by this method, and I can't understand the patent. It certainly is'nt my idea because my idea works- I've made windows!.
It's difficult because if you have an idea, you need to patent it-quick-in case someone steals it. But maybe over time and after experiments and costings have taken place, you find the original idea has improved and changed.I think the patent system needs reform so even if ideas have been patented, if they don't work within say, 5 years, the patent can lapse and be reallocated. Is'nt that why Stephenson invented the narrow guage railway, Trevithick had invented the wide guage and patented it? With all the ramifications of that. Email me on Camefix@aol.com if you like.
I have recieved ideas and encouragement from Bola from Global Women's Inventors & Innovators Network which seems to be linked to the DTI. Bola@gwiin.com. We got a delicious lunch at the Guildhall. But I never noticed people falling over themselves to give me money.
What's hard about being an innovator is all the other stuff that gets in the way of making your invention; patents, setting up a website (take my advice, dont use 123-Reg), commissioning manufacturers, experimenting with glues etc, trying to set up a business. no one funds me.
Regards Lesley
Hi Lesley,
The lack of support for inventors in the UK scandalous. Is it any wonder that our innovation rate is plummeting when inventors are treated with such contempt. We have no rights, no status, and no help is provided whatsoever.
If one were to be cynical one would say that the system has been designed to be as unhelpful and difficult as possible.
Even professionals who earn their crust from inventors – patent lawyers – don’t seem to want the UK to be a “inventor friendly” country.
Fine, let us see where we are when everyone just gives up.
DT
Nicely spotted by balancedview...
As I also (currently) have half a pint full...there are other reasons to be cheerful. Check out the EC's "Study on what patents are worth" at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/indprop/docs/patent/studies/patentstudy-report_en.pdf
Some nice little factoids from the report:
- In the survey taken 25% of patents in Germany were "sleeping".
- Average value of patents in UK more than twice that of the average in Gemrany in France
- 9% of patents surveyed in the UK led to start-ups, compared to 3% in Germany, 1.5% in France.
Also if you check out the USPTO you'll see a huge amount of patents from US, Japan and Germany come from big corporate labs. Which I haven't decided whether is good or bad yet...but is interesting to compare to the UK
Tough luck on the invention front by the sound of things - better luck next time round.
1. Incorrect. The proportion has fallen but the number has generally increased, albeit with a lower rate of growth than other countnries.
2. And the newspapers print the charts like that for the same reasons - to give a distorted appearance to the data so that unobservant viewers say 'Wow, isn't that good/bad'. But it is still a distortion.
3. Using data from WIPO and Nationmaster, UK is 15th out of 120+ countries for number of patents granted per head.
4. I don't think this is entirely true. There would be no point in filing a PCT if your market is purely in the UK, or for that matter if it wasn't cost-effective to file elsewhere.
5. The UK Patent Act contains provisions to prevent such happenings. Could you elaborate?
Lesley
Im a bit confused about your post. First you say your invention has already been patented (so you cant patent it yourself) then you say this US patent isnt the same as your idea - which suggests your invention is different and therefore maybe patentable.
As far as the patent system goes, you have an initial one year window from first filing an application (which secures your provisional rights) to decide whether or not to continue. If by the end of this year you have discovered that there is no market, stop. You can add further information to the application (eg improvements) by filing a second application and claiming priority from the first. Bear in mind the application is still unpublished, so if you have not made your invention available to the public and you want to delay the next steps (eg applications in other countries) you can withdraw and re-file the application (which restarts the clock).
With regard to DT's comments on helpfulness, you will also find that the Patent Office has a division devoted to dealing with private individuals (rather than agents) and that they do their best provide guidance to the procedures in law, which are admittedly complicated as these laws have to provide a balance between fairness to the applicant and the public for things which do not yet exist. Patent agents will also usually provide free advice for at least the initial meeting.
The Finance question is more difficult, but I think it is a question of getting out there and selling your idea to as many people as possible to try and raise interest. Very difficult, and it helps if you know someone in a relevant company to give you a foot in the door. BusinessLink is often a good place to start for advice and funding, and if they think your invention really is a good idea they should be able to help. Of course, if you get interest from a company (and having a patent application may help them take you more seriously) you might be able to get a license deal going, or sell the invention to them outright, to lessen the financial burden.
To summarise, you can file a patent application for nothing to secure your provisional worldwide rights for a year before you have to do anything else, talk to a patent agent or the Patent Office for free to discuss the next steps, and approach BusinessLink and relevant companies to try and sell your idea.
If one was not as cynical as DT, one would see that there are systems in place to try and help inventors!
balancedview,
1. Well, according to the information I’ve read the number of patents has decreased dramatically.
Why don’t you tell me what is wrong with the following information. Here is the link. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. See table 1.
The British Library’s PATENT DOCUMENTATION MANAGER claims the UK has suffered an “APPALING DECLINE”.
I believe him.
2. It is not only newspapers printing charts with selected ranges. Every scientist and engineer on the planet also uses the same technique. It is the accepted scientific way of representing data. This is what is taught in all of our universities. A chart’s range is selected to highlight the section of results under consideration.
I guess you will be devoting a fair amount of time to your campaign.
Good luck.
3. The UK’s position in world innovation is dropping. It is now dangerously low. I’ve haven’t met anyone who disagrees with this fact.
Here, have a look at our “weaknesses in innovation” the OECD highlighted: Economic Survey of the United Kingdom 2005.
4. I am not saying that UK only patents are worthless. I am saying that PCT patents are, generally, the most valuable and are a better indication of good performance than national patents.
5. How on earth does that the patent office stop slavering freaks from stealing inventions from inventors? They don’t even check on existence of named inventors, never mind whether they actually invented the stuff in the first place!
Due to popular demand, and irritation typing responses on this blog, I’ve set up a innovation message board. Please join me: InnovationTalk.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1. Well, the link you show was created in May 2000 so is a bit out of date now.
These are the numbers for PCT filings with a UK origin (source=WIPO) :
1990 1,957
1991 2,257
1992 2,374
1993 2,634
1994 2,838
1995 3,005
1996 3,144
1997 3,465
1998 3,667
1999 4,207
2000 4,795
2001 5,482
2002 5,376
2003 5,205
2004 5,031
2005 5,100
Notice the general trend upwards, with a bit of a dip around 2002 (maybe a side effect of uncertainty due to the war in Iraq?). Not really what I would call a dramatic decrease ... unless of course you are looking at your own misleading graphs (see next point)
2. I have a scientific doctorate and was taught that the correct way to graphically represent data is with full-scale axes. I agree with this teaching. Anything else is misleading to the casual viewer. The newspapers do it for headlines. Scientific journals do it because the scientist reading it would probably consider the graph for longer than a glance and notice the axes accordingly. Your graphs fall into the headline category, which for the casual viewer is misleading and sensationalist. In other words it is the correct way to grab someone's attention. But IMHO it is the wrong way to represent facts to the casual viewer.
3. This document indicates the UK is average in the OECD countries and one of the things it needs to do is to improve its position is strengthen its innovation. I don't disagree - but my viewpoint is with a half-full glass whereas yours appears to be half-empty.
4. Actually I think you WERE indicating that UK patents were worthless - as you said before they were taken out for trivial reasons ('Vanity' or 'Performance Indicator' purposes). I would also point out that there is no such thing as an International patent (only an international patent application) - and this eventually would have to lead to individual national/regional patents if you wanted protection. The advantage of the international system is that it gives a bit more time to consider which countries to pursue and a partly consolidated procedure - but at an additional (largish) cost. If you know which countries you want to get patents for it is not always worth paying the extra for a international application.
5. You can refer an entitlement dispute to the Patent Office under section 37 of the Act (for a granted patent) and if you can show the invention is yours they will transfer the patent into your name. Shall we continue this discussion on the InnovationTalk forum?
best regards, nice info
»
1. It isn’t just a link, it is a trend analysis by the British Library’s Patent Documentation Manager. He qualifies the data by stating that is shows an “appalling decline” in UK innovative activity.
This is not an isolated view. Dyson, in his 2004 Richard Dimbleby lecture, states: “We file fewer patents with each passing year. And in terms of patent applications per capita - probably the best measure of a nation's inventiveness – we are fast slipping down the league tables”.
I suppose Dyson is also deluded and 2004 is ancient history, eh?
2. You opinion is noted – thanks.
3. My glass if half empty is it? Are you buying the next round?
4. I did not say UK patents were worthless. I said that PCT patents were a better indicator of national performance. I hold this view because I have been involved with (named as an inventor) a national patent which was taken out for performance indicator purposes (note: I was not told of this patent, not informed by the patent office that it was raised, and only found out about its existence by accident).
5. The patent office does not require invertors to sign inventorship forms. This means that crooks and liars are allowed to steal inventions. Also, the patent office does not ensure that named inventors are informed that an application for a patent has been filed. This means the whole patent register could be corrupted.
1. regarding what's wrong with that table - well for a start is the number of priorities claimed not the number of filings or granted patents. Oh and that data's quite old now. I don't have Dyson's data to back up his recent comments do you?
3. Maybe when I've finished mine - and I drink slower ;-)
4. Noted - but I think that is the exception rather than the norm. PCT's are comparitively expensive compared to the UK - and there would be no point in filing a PCT if your market was the UK (or only a few countries)
5. Yes it could in theory but I guess if everyone had to sign some sort of inventorship form (like they do in the US) this could be a quite a burden (like it is in the US) and still could be faked anyway. As such occurrences are considered to be relatively rare, the policy is apparently to correct errors when they are brought to the Patent Office's attention. So while the Register can be corrupted, there are provisions to uncorrupt it.
BV
1. You keep telling me the data is “old” but I have also given you current supporting data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Patent Office (EPO).
Change the record, the one your are using is worn out and has expired.
4. If we are a “globalised” economy and we are competing against the world then, surely, we need to protect intellectual property globally, and thus PCT protected intellectual property is worth more than just innovations protected in the UK alone.
5. The policy to “correct” errors cost money to use and exposes the applicant to the liability of costs – you could end up paying the thief for having the bilious arrogance to report the theft. The same as other white-collar crime, I suppose. After all, we don’t want the lower orders standing up for their rights eh?
No, sorry, the scandal of not contacting the inventors is an appalling abuse of process and the rule of law. There is no excuse for it (apart from wanting to protect liars and crooks, that is).
Would it be quality over quantity?
We can only hope that Gordon Brown does something to change this.
1. The data used is old because it dates back to 2000 (see above). As far as record-changing goes I can only reciprocate the same back to you. The more recent data does not show the UK is such a harsh light which I imagine is why you chose not to use it.
4. PCTs do not lead to worldwide patents - they are an intermediate stage for individual national application procedures which may lead to granted patents in individual countries. Therefore a PCT is not better at indicating national performance than the national procedures themselves.
5. We'll have to agree to disagree. Even if your the patent office did contact inventors as you propose, how would you prevent fraud i.e. a third party using the inventor's identity? I don't think your solution is any better!
BV
IP Parade,
If anyone can sort out this mess it will be Gordon Brown.
Post a Comment
<< Home