IBM Wins Annual Patent Race for 20th Consecutive Year
IBM is celebrating 20 consecutive years heading up the list of the Top 50 U.S. patent assignees.
According to the list published by IFI Claims, IBM was awarded 6,478 patents in 2012, up from 6,180 in 2011. Samsung remained in #2 with 5,081 granted patents (up from 4,894), and Canon held on to #3 with 3,174 (up from 2,821).
Sony, now listed in position 4, has made the biggest jump from #7 in 2011 and 2,286 patents to 3,3032 patents. Panasonic dropped to fifth place, followed by Microsoft, Toshiba, Hon Hai Precision Industry, GE and LG. Both GE and LG were not part of the Top 10 in 2011, and replaced Seiko and Hitachi, which fell out of the list. At least 1,624 patents were required to make the first 10 assignees; position 50, which is held by LG Display, was awarded 626 patents.
"We are proud of this new benchmark in technological and scientific creativity, which grows out of IBM’s century-long commitment to research and development," said Ginni Rometty, chairman and CEO of IBM, in a prepared statement. "Most concretely, our 2012 patent record and the two decades of leadership it extends are a testament to thousands of brilliant IBM inventors - the living embodiments of our devotion to innovation that matters, for our clients, for our company and for the world."
Research in Graphene, Racetrack Memory, Carbon Nanotubes..
Sample of Apple Patents:
Square Devices with Rounded Corners..
Please, correct Sony's number of patents, with 33032 patents would be some sort of a record.
Research in Graphene, Racetrack Memory, Carbon Nanotubes..
Sample of Apple Patents:
Square Devices with Rounded Corners..
You do realize patents are neccessary for innovation right? If people can not have at least a certain amount of time where they alone can profit from their work, then no one would invest the time and money to come up with new items.
A good example is the pharmaceutical companies. They spend literally years and tens of millions of dollars researching new medications and all during the R&D process, they make bring in no money off it. Now, when their product is proved successful and is approved for sale, if they had no patent rights, then other companies would just make it for pennies, if not a fraction of a penny, on the dollar compared to what the creator of the new drug can make it for since the creator has to make up for all the money spent to develop it. This would lead EVERY company to stop trying to develop new products. The same goes for every other type of product.
The problem we see with patents these days is not the idea of patents, but the awarding of patents for vague ideas that can cover way to much.
Patents are currently the mechanism by which big companies prevent small companies from being able to compete with them. Business works like this now:
1. Create a tech startup
2a. Fail on your own
2b. Succeed on your own and either:
3a. Get bought out by a big tech company and make a few million or:
3b. Refuse to be bought out by a big tech company and be sued into oblvion for "infringing on their patents"
Sorry, but that is what's wrong. You argument is based on the assumption that people would invent and innovate solely out of a sense of charity. Sorry, no one is going to invest tens of thousands of dollars, possibly millions of dollars and more, just so that when they do develop a new product every one else can come along and make it and undercut the developer on price because they have no investment to make up for.
It doesn't matter of the company is small or large. A large company can just as easily steal from another large one and a small business can steal from a large one. Are you saying you would devote your own money and time to develop a product and then not patent it? Somehow, I doubt that.
Sample of Apple patents:
- LTE patents used in your cell phone (if it has LTE).
- Patents on microprocessor design.
- Patents related to integrated circuit design.
- Manufacturing processes to allow 3D stacking of components on an integrated circuit die.
- Patents related to materials sciences.
- LCD patents (which Samsung has to use under license before they can actually make screens for Apple).
- A whole slew of patents related to low latency synchronization, beat matching and other functions related to audio/music recording and production. This is why iOS totally dominates the music production field and Android is useless (due to its horrible audio latency and lack of API support).
Then again, you can go on trying to spread the myth that Apple only has patents on the shape or look o their devices. For every patent like that you can find I can list 10x as many technical patents Apple has.
Totally agree. Except on the dollar figure. It can cost hundreds of millions to get a new drug developed and tested.
I don't know how so many stupid people can keep claiming that patents stifle innovation. Without protection there's no way companies would spend the billions they do on R&D. These areprobably the same people who think it's OK to download software for free instead of paying.
I think it's because in this day and age people making money is considered bad. They believe that people should work and make things and not profit by it, but at the same time, those who think that way would never invest the resources to create something new and innovative.
- LTE patents used in your cell phone (if it has LTE).
- Patents on microprocessor design.
- Patents related to integrated circuit design.
- Manufacturing processes to allow 3D stacking of components on an integrated circuit die.
- Patents related to materials sciences.
- LCD patents (which Samsung has to use under license before they can actually make screens for Apple).
- A whole slew of patents related to low latency synchronization, beat matching and other functions related to audio/music recording and production. This is why iOS totally dominates the music production field and Android is useless (due to its horrible audio latency and lack of API support).
Then again, you can go on trying to spread the myth that Apple only has patents on the shape or look o their devices. For every patent like that you can find I can list 10x as many technical patents Apple has.
I'm sure Apple has technical patents, but it's when they sue based on patents for objects with rounded corners that they look silly.