For more than a century, the US has been the dominant global force for innovation. However, China and other Asian countries are testing that dominance, and the West should welcome the challenge.
China’s move from imitation to innovation has been a matter of national policy in recent years. In 2011, for example, the Chinese government established a set of ambitious targets for the production of patents.
Almost immediately, China became the world’s top filer of patents.
China soon surpassed the US in other important measures. Each year, Chinese universities award more doctorates, and more than twice as many undergraduate degrees in science and engineering, than US institutions.
Moreover, China is set to outpace the US in investment in research and development (R&D). Since 2001, China’s R&D expenditure has been growing by 18 percent annually and has more than doubled as a share of GDP. In the US, that ratio has remained relatively constant.
To be sure, such metrics can easily be manipulated — a fact that critics are quick to point out. However, statistics from the US National Science Foundation reveal a genuine drive to innovate across much of Asia, with East, South and Southeast Asian countries together spending more on R&D than the US.
Technology-intensive activity in the region is fast approaching that of North America and Western Europe.
In fact, Asian countries are helping to fuel one another’s innovative success. China’s invention initiative has produced such rapid results in part because the government actively cooperates with its Asian competitors.
Indeed, despite territorial disputes and other divisive issues, the commissioners of the patent offices of Japan, South Korea, China and to a lesser extent, Taiwan and Singapore meet often to define and coordinate their intellectual property policies. China’s leaders know that they can learn from countries like Japan and South Korea, which implemented policies to encourage innovation and protect intellectual property rights long before China did.
The precise impact of Asia’s intellectual property expansion is impossible to predict. However, its transformative potential is obvious.
Asian countries are essentially giving tens of thousands of top minds the opportunities and incentives to tackle today’s most pressing challenges, such as developing cost-effective sustainable energy solutions, ensuring affordable healthcare for aging populations and improving the quality of life in overcrowded cities.
These complex problems demand a plurality of innovative talent and long-term international collaboration — not just to find solutions, but also to deploy them. In an increasingly knowledge-based global economy, partnerships and cooperation are set to be the natural order.
In this context, the West would be foolish to resist Asia’s intellectual property emergence. Instead, Western governments should support, learn from and reap the rewards of the invention boom in the East.
For example, the US, which leads the world in bringing innovative products to the market, should offer commercialization channels to innovative Chinese universities and small companies.
Chinese and Western companies should also be encouraged to invest in one another’s intellectual property.
Such cooperation has already begun. For example, in 2008, Intellectual Ventures (which I helped found) established a presence in China and other countries with emerging innovation cultures in order to focus their inventors’ talent and energy.
The resulting global network of more than 400 institutions and more than 4,000 active inventors has produced more patent applications than many R&D-intensive companies do.
In this ecosystem, everyone wins. The inventors gain access to the company’s expertise in intellectual property development and to an international community of experienced problem-solvers.
Intellectual Ventures gets a stake in valuable solutions and the world benefits from those solutions. Imagine if more such initiatives were launched, not only by companies, but also by governments. A cooperative approach could help to improve the troubled trade dynamics between Asia and the West, characterized by disagreement over China’s lax enforcement of its intellectual property laws.
Instead of shaking its fist, the West could provide incentives that encourage China to become a responsible actor in the existing intellectual property regime.
These could include, for example, efforts to organize viable alternatives to piracy for the tens of thousands of Chinese companies that currently earn a living from it. Some Western entrepreneurs already turn to these so-called Shan Zhai (山寨) enterprises to manufacture their prototypes at scale.
Eventually, many Shan Zhai companies will evolve into legitimate businesses with their own intellectual property. Given that Asian countries naturally would uphold and defend intellectual property rights more vigorously when they have more at stake, the West should look for ways to hasten this transition.
The West can also take some lessons from the various models Asian countries are experimenting with as they ramp up domestic innovation.
In South Korea, LG recently launched a program to solicit invention ideas from the public, promising inventors a hefty 8 percent stake in the proceeds of any ideas the company commercializes. That is probably not an approach that many US companies have considered. However, maybe they should.
Asia is also experimenting with creative ways to finance innovation, such as China’s intellectual property exchanges and Malaysia’s intellectual property loan programs.
The West should pay attention to these efforts, because they could offer alternatives to traditional avenues for sourcing and financing invention, such as venture capital, that are producing lackluster results.
Finally, Western companies should be willing to supply input to Chinese businesses selling innovative products.
This recommendation might seem radical, but only because the view of a one-way flow of innovation from West to East has become so entrenched. In fact, there is no good reason for Western businesses to stand on the sidelines as Asia produces whizz-kid entrepreneurs and high-tech startups. These pioneers are building ecosystems with points of entry at every level, and the West should enter at all of them.
As Asian innovation comes into its own, the US and other developed countries must find ways to participate — or risk missing the opportunity of the century in a vain bid to recapture bygone supremacy.
Edward Jung is Intellectual Ventures head technology officer and former Microsoft chief architect.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US