Total Pageviews

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Are there patents in 1st Industrial Revolution? (IS INDIA READY FOR 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-PART2)

I raised this query in my bog post dated 19th February 2018 and VK Varun, Scientist from DSIR, Ministry of Science & Technology commented  
During First Industrial Resolution, As per USPTO, 4695 patents were granted during 01/Jan/1790 to 31/12/1840 and its distribution is as follows:
1790-1800 [117]; 1801-1810 [084]; 1811-1820 [177]; 1821-1830 [595]; and 1831-1840 [3722].
Thank u Varun. There were indeed many patents and this was discussed in the working paper: Patents and the first industrial revolution in
Some interesting aspects:
Between 1660-1760, few patents were awarded in England; it was unusual for more than a dozen to be granted in any one year. number of patents increases rapidly so that in 1800, 96 patents were awarded and in 1850, 513. Out of 72 'superstar' inventors born between 1660 and 1830, 81% obtained at least one patent in the course of their careers. 
Patent agents appeared in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Agents offered an extremely valuable service; by 1849, virtually all inventors employed an agent (even if they resided in the capital). 
International patentsIn the 1820s, Britons obtained, at the very least, 170 patents in France (6.3 %) of the total awarded) and in the 1830s, 415 (7%)  of the total awarded. Henry Bessemer worked on the problem of manufacturing cheap steel for ordnance production from 1850 to 1855 when he patented his method. He sold an exclusive licence to the Spanish  for his steel converter for £5,000. 
Patent infringement: Work on patent cases in the Court of Chancery between 1714 and 1758, shows that there were, at the very least, forty one cases instigated by patentees. The Court of Chancery offered patentees a variety of legal remedies – most importantly, injunctions.
Patent licensing Between 1770 and 1845, around 30 percent of English patents were assigned in full and another 25 percent were either assigned in part and/or licensed as well. Many inventors licensed their patent. By selling a portion of the patent as part of a partnership agreement, inventors could obtain access to manufacturing plant and/or capital. Without sufficient capital, it is difficult to turn an invention to profit.
Many inventors made money silk-winding machinery patented by Thomas Lombe in 1718 and worked in partnership with his half-brother John and his cousin William. Over the course of the patent term (1718-1732,  Thomas made £80,000, and when he died in 1739, he was able to leave his family £120,000, a colossal fortune by the standards of the day.
All inventors did not make moneythere were many inventors during the industrial revolution who failed to reap any rewards from their endeavours and ended their days in poverty – John Kay, James Hargreaves and Richard Trevithick to name but three. Moreover, Kay, Hargreaves and Trevithick all chose to patent their most important inventions (respectively, the flying shuttle, the spinning jenny and the first high-pressure steam locomotive), but to no avail.

Patenting is not a new subject, only we cannot continue to ignore them for 4th industrial revolution too. in Part 3 we will discuss about pitfalls of leap-frogging.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Licences DPI de brevet, commercialisation de la technologie, marketing de l'innovation: Première partie, principes fondamentaux des DPI (French Edition)

Inventor and author Majid EI Bouazzaoui translatied into the French language and adaptation to Moroccan law, the first part " Basic principles of intellectual property rights (Ipr) " of the Indian book " Patent Licensing, commercialization of technology, marketing of Innovation "...
It is a unique book that goes around the topic and presents the basic principles of intellectual property law (Ipr), analyses the weaknesses of the law in the face of accelerated technology and economic development; and Even offers solutions.
This is really a reference book that must exist in every home and be reread as often as possible. I recommend it to students, professors, scientists, Phd students, engineers, inventors, entrepreneurs, policymakers, politicians, etc.

Order on Amazon.

US court rules on royalty for 2G, 3G, 4G SEPs

The court took a firm stand against royalty stacking. The judgement cited one of the key reasons for using top down analysis is that it prevents royalty stacking. The court also found that the results from the ex-standard approach proposed by Ericsson are highly suggestive of royalty stacking and lack fundamental credibility. The court adopted a maximum aggregate royalty rate based on various public announcements made by SEP owners and industry leaders for the top down calculations.
The court relied on the top down approach for determining a fair and reasonable royalty rate. It said: “A top down model aims to value a portfolio of SEPs by determining a fair and reasonable total aggregate royalty for all patents that are essential to a standard.” “It then apportions that royalty to the SEP owners based on the relative value of their portfolio against the value of all patents essential to the standard.”
Rates under FRAND:
4G- 0.45%
3G- 0.30%
(source: IP Pro Patents)

Monday, February 19, 2018


Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced that the DoT will set up test centre for 5th generation telecom technology with IIT Chennai. As per budget document, the FM has proposed to allocate Rs 134.48 crore for setting up of the "5G connectivity Test Bed".  Further the minister said the government would invest in research in new areas such as machine learning, artificial intelligence, robotics as it looks to prepare the country for the technology of the future. "Technologies such as machine learning, artificial intelligence and others are the technologies of the future and NITI Aayog will establish a national programme to conduct research and development in these areas,".  These new generation technologies are associated with 4th Industrial revolution. Are we getting ready for the Factories 4 ?

The term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee to describe Britain’s economic development from 1760 to 1840. It witnessed the emergence of mechanization, a process that replaced agriculture with industry as the foundations of the economic structure of society. Mass extraction of coal along with the invention of the steam engine created a new type of energy that thrusted forward all processes thanks to the development of railroads and the acceleration of economic, human and material exchanges. Other major inventions such as forging and new know-how in metal shaping gradually drew up the blueprints for the first factories and cities as we know them today.

The first Industrial Revolution and most technological developments preceding it had little or no scientific base. It created a chemical industry with no chemistry, an iron industry without metallurgy, power machinery without thermodynamics. Engineering, medical technology, and agriculture until 1850 were pragmatic bodies of applied knowledge in which things were known to work, but rarely was it understood why they worked. The second Industrial Revolution accelerated the mutual feedbacks between these two forms of knowledge `science’ and `technology’. Historians have labeled the years from 1870-1914 as the period of the Second Industrial Revolution. While the First Industrial Revolution caused the growth of industries, such as coal, iron, railroads and textiles, the Second Industrial Revolution witnessed the expansion of electricity, petroleum and steel.

The Third Industrial Revolution, or the Digital Revolution, refers to the advancement of technology from analog electronic and mechanical devices to the digital technology available today. The era started during the 1980s and is ongoing.  Advancements during the Third Industrial Revolution include the personal computer, the internet, and information and communications technology (ICT). The first industrial revolution used water and steam to mechanize production, the second used electric energy to create mass production and the third used electronics and information technology to automate production.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution builds on the Digital Revolution, representing new ways in which technology becomes embedded within societies and even the human body. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is marked by emerging technology breakthroughs in a number of fields, including robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, The Internet of Things, 3D printing and autonomous vehicles.

The fourth revolution is unfolding before our eyes. For India, the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings tremendous opportunities to leapfrog many stages of development, hastening its journey towards becoming a developed economy. In many ways, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a leveller. The technologies being used in India will be the same as those in use in the developed world. Robots, AI, IoT are all technologies transforming industry in the West and are ready to do the same in India.

We missed the first and second Industrial revolutions but IT manpower gave us a strong foothold on the global platform in digital era.  Along with lure of opportunity, there exists threat of `premature industrialization’.  De-industrialization sets in for developed economies after they reach high level of economic prosperity.  Manufacturing as a share of total employment peaked at 45% in the UK before World War I, while in the US, it peaked in the range of 25-27% in the 1970s, before dropping off in both cases. But the UK and the US were both prosperous economies at the respective point in times at which this deindustrialization occurred. Harvard economist Dani Rodrik sees what he called “premature deindustrialization” as manufacturing shrinks in poor countries that never industrialized much in the first place. Manufacturing as a share of employment peaked at about 15% for Brazil in the late 1980s, and has been declining ever since. In India, manufacturing peaked at 13% in 2002 and has been in decline since then. We have a thriving service sector but need jobs in manufacturing too.

Analysis by World Economic Forum `Readiness for Future ofProduction analyses strengths and weakness of India. Of the 100 countries we are ranked 30 for structure of production but lower at 42 for drivers of production. The focus thus has to be on improving the areas where we are week. Our weakest area is Technology & Innovation. To understand this we need to reflect on Intellectual Property. We will address this in next part- are there patents in 1st Industrial Revolution?

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Life Science clusters in India

The BIRAC Regional Innovation Centre at IKP Knowledge Park prepared a study of select life sciences clusters in India. It maps the knowledge generation capacity, interaction between various stakeholders and gaps that hinder commercialisation of innovations.
Download link:

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Digital Vaccine- war on trademark

Bhargav Sri Prakash, founder of a Silicon Valley based Indian start up FriendsLearn behind the fooya! app is fighting off a trademark bid for “digital vaccines” by Boston based Moderna Therapeutics which has filed for exclusive access to the trademark for “digital vaccines”. 
“Digital vaccines” expand the definition of a standard injected vaccine. “Neurogaming and immersive VR based apps like fooya! induce specific brain activity to trigger habit formation and have been shown in clinical trials to reduce health risks and prevent lifestyle disease. At its core, this is what our digital vaccine embodies,” says Sri Prakash.
Moderna Therapeutics, is a biotechnology startup based in Boston which has attracted nearly $2 billion from investors since its 2010 founding. Among other things it partnered with Merck to develop personalised cancer vaccine.
IT companies have been referring Digital Vaccine as security packages for network systems.

Readiness for the Future of Production Report 2018

The Readiness for the Future of Production Report 2018 is published by the World Economic Forum’s System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Production. The data-driven Readiness for the Future of Production Assessment 2018 analyses how well positioned countries are today to shape and benefit from the changing nature of production in the future. Readiness is generally regarded as the ability to capitalize on future production opportunities, mitigate risks and challenges, and be resilient and agile in responding to unknown future shocks. The assessment is made up of two main components: Structure of Production, or a country’s current baseline of production, and Drivers of Production, or the key enablers that position a country to capitalize on the Fourth Industrial Revolution to transform production systems. Where does India stand?
Of the 100 countries and economies included in the assessment, there are 25 Leading countries, 10 Legacy countries, 7 High-Potential countries/economies and 58 Nascent countries. All Leading countries are high-income countries except for China and Malaysia. Overall, the 25 Leading countries already account for over three quarters of global Manufacturing Value Added today and are poised to do well in the future—which could lead to increased global disparity in production. India is in the Legacy country category, meaning there exists large structure of production but pulled down by unfavourable drivers of production, which is measured by Technology & Innovation, Human Capital, Global trade & investment, demand environment and sustainable resources. Thus India gets 30th rank for structure of production but 44th rank for drivers of production. And in the demand environment it ranks in top 5.

Legacy countries currently have a strong Structure of Production, but display a low level of readiness for the future of production, characterized by weak performance across the Drivers of Production. Historically, many Legacy countries benefited from globalization as more developed economies outsourced lower pieces of the value chain to places with lower labour costs. As a result, Legacy countries received foreign direct investment, increased market access and developed a strong Structure of Production. Whereas Leading countries score very well on Complexity, Legacy countries’ strength within the Structure of Production tends to be on Scale. With rising production costs, Legacy countries risk losing traditional manufacturing share to Nascent countries that can offer even cheaper labour. By underinvesting across drivers, Legacy countries risk not being as prepared as Leading countries to capture advanced manufacturing share in the future. Combined, these risks could lead to premature de-industrialization if they are not managed effectively.

Does this mean India's ride in 4th Industrial Revolution could be bumpy with obsolete manufacturing technology?

Thursday, January 04, 2018

FRAND rates in US Judgement

A US judge has handed down a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence for standard-essential patents (SEPs) in a high-profile quarrel between telecoms company Ericsson and TCL, a China-based smartphone maker.   Royalty rates fixed as under:
A running royalty for End User Terminals Sold beginning January 1, 2018 according to the following schedule:
 For each such product Sold that is compliant with GSM, GPRS, or EDGE (but not compliant with WCDMA, HSPA, and/or 4G), 0.164% of the Net Selling Price if sold in the United States, 0.118% of the Net Selling Price if sold in Europe, and 0.090% of the Net Selling Price if sold anywhere in the world other than the United States or Europe; 
 For each such product Sold that is compliant with WCDMA or HSPA (but not compliant with 4G), 0.300% of the Net Selling Price if sold in the United States, 0.264% of the Net Selling Price if sold in Europe, and 0.224% of the Net Selling Price if sold anywhere in the world other than the United States or Europe;

 For each such product Sold that is compliant with 4G, 0.450% of the Net Selling Price if sold in the United States, and 0.314% of the Net Selling Price if sold anywhere in the world other than the United States. Should TCL purchase TCL End User Terminals from a Third Party claiming to  be licensed or to have pass-through rights under Ericsson Licensed Patents that confer a license covering the End User Terminal, then TCL will receive credit for that pass through license in the royalty rates applied. In particular, with regard to Ericsson Patents that are essential to the WCDMA Standards (“Ericsson WCDMA Licensed Patents”) for the Selling of ASICs, then TCL may have the option of remaining unlicensed by Ericsson under such Ericsson WCDMA Licensed Patents subject to Selling TCL End User Terminals with ASICs that are compliant with the WCDMA Standard. TCL shall then pay a royalty equal to the rate paid for the GSM/GPRS/EDGE and/or LTE Standards as specified in Clause E(3)(a) or Clause E(3)(c) of this Injunction, as applicable, for each such TCL End User Terminal  provided that such TCL End User Terminal is also compliant with any of the GSM/GPRS/EDGE Standards and/or LTE Standards while it is qualified as a WCDMA End User Terminal. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties acknowledge the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Ericsson confirms that upon the Effective Date it has not provided any licenses with pass-through rights under its 4G patent portfolio to a chipset provider, making, using, importing, selling, or otherwise disposing of 4G compliant chipsets and components. For the avoidance of doubt, TCL shall only be required to pay the highest  prevailing royalty rate under this Injunction for each End User Terminal. For example, the 3G royalty rate for 3G multimode End User Terminal includes the royalty rate also for the 2G part in such End User Terminal.
Source: Judgement