JAMES H. SCHWARTZ In what ways c a n t h e problems be alleviated? T o keep t h e chemist i n touch with related fields a chemical newspaper is required, perhaps of t h e form of t h e Nature News Sections, devoted t o recent advances i n chemistry as they are published. Difficulties of editing such a publication can be foreseen, nevertheless it would be a considerable improvement over present “browsing” methods. T h e problems of retrospective literature searches are more difficult t o solve, being of h u m a n origin. Use of a parallel search based on a keyword method would eliminate past problems, though resulting in some time-consuming duplication. Continuance of such practices can only be prevented by more efficient refereeing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I a m very grateful t o D. Sutton for helpful criticism. LITERATURE CITED (1) Vagianos; L., “Information Patterns of Chemists in a Uni-
versity Environment,”J. Chern. Doc. 11,85 (1971).
Schneider, J. H., “Selective Dissemination and Indexing of Scientific Information,” Science 173, 300 (1971). Lynch, J . T., and Smith, G. D. W., “Scientific Information by Computer,” Nature 230, 153 (1971). Smith, G. D. W., “Information by the E,” (a rebuttal), New Scientist51, 342 (1971). Gushee, D. E., “Reading Behaviour of Chemists,” J . Chem. Doc. 8, 191 (1968). Barrett, R. L., and Barrett, M. A., “Journals most cited by Chemists and Chemical Engineers,” J. Chem. Educ. 34, 35 (1957). Panton, D., and Reuben, B. G., “What do Chemists Read?,” Chern. Brit 7, 18 (1971). Crombie, L., “Specialist Periodical Reports of the Chemical Society (SPR); a Major New Development in the Literature of Chemistry,” Chern. Znd., 1971, p. 1122. ‘Garfield, E., “Citation Indexing for Studying Science,” Nature 227,669 (1970). Price, D. J. des., “Some Remarks on Elitism in Information and the Invisible College Phenomenon in Science,” J. Amer. SOC.Info. Sei. 22,74 (1971). Reif, F., “The Competitive World of the Pure Scientist,” Science 134,1957 (1961).
Quantitative Characteristics of Patents, Inventions, and Innovat ions JAMES H. SCHWARTZ Technical Information Section. Celanese Research Co., Summit, N. J. 07901 Received November 24, 197 1
Based on a survey of the literature published since 1962, quantitative information is presented which relates to sources and geographical origins of inventions, the time interval from conception to innovation, and the use of patents as evidenced by licensing. Of 33 examples of innovations since 1917, only six showed the same geographical origin for invention and innovation and had a time span from discovery to innovation of less than five years. Eleven examples showed different geographical origins for invention and innovation and a time interval of 10 or more years from date of invention to date of innovation.
One measure of America’s technological strength is its number of inventions. T h e number of U. S.patents exceeds t h a t of any other nation. Since 1950 when approximately 43,000 patents were granted, t h e number of U. S. patents issued annually increased t o 50,000 in 1960 and 67,000 in 1970. At t h e end of 1970, there were approximately 900,000 unexpired U. S. patents. About 60% of these live patents are owned by domestic corporations and 10% by foreign firms.’ In 1964, 80% of all U. S. patents were of local origin. T h e remainder were divided a s follows: 4% t o firms from West Germany, 4% t o British firms, 2% t o French firms, and 10% t o inventors from more t h a n 25 other nations. In contrast, approximately 62% of all West German patents were of local origin. T h e remainder were issued to: firms from t h e U. S.(15%), Great Britain ( 5 % ) , France (4%), and from more t h a n 25 other nations (14%). In another example, only 19% of all patents granted in the, Netherlands were of Dutch origin; while patents of U. S.a n d German origin each accounted for 22% of t h e total documents.8 Presently, about three out of four U. S. patents are as6 Journal of Chemical Documentation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1972
signed to corporations. T h e remaining one-fourth are owned by individuals, with a small proportion held by t h e federal government.? This ratio differs from 20 years ago when 55.2% of U. S.patents were assigned t o corporations and 42.8% were issued t o individuals.;
SOURCES OF INVENTION Aluminum is a striking example of a n industry created by invention. In a study of t h e American aluminum industry from 1946 through 1957, Merton Peck of Harvard found t h a t primary producers of aluminum were a n import a n t source of inventions for new product applications and alloys but contributed relatively little toward advances in welding, fabricating, a n d finishing. Primary producers concentrated their inventive efforts in alloys which can be directly incorporated into the product line and which yield profits t h a t are relatively immediate compared t o profits from inventions in fabricating a n d manufacturing techniques. In comparison, equipment makers were t h e major
CHARACTERISTICS O F P A T E N T S , INVENTIONS. AND INNOVATIONS source of fabricating inventions. Again, t h e more immediate a n d certain profits from invention for such firms a p pear t o be t h e stimulus for i n v e n t i o a 6 T h e sources of inventions in t h e U. S. aluminum industry for 1946-1957 expressed as percentages of all inventions in four technical areas are shown in T a b l e I. I n another study, Willard Mueller of t h e University of Wisconsin analyzed t h e sources of inventions underlying D u Pont’s major product a n d process innovations during t h e period 1920-1950. H e showed t h a t of 25 important D u Pont product a n d process innovations (Table 11), ten were based o n inventions of D u P o n t scientists a n d engineers.’ Of t h e 15 non-Du P o n t discoveries, only four originated i n t h e United States. T h e origin of t h e other 11 inventions is distributed as follows: Germany ( 5 ) , Great Britain (3), Sweden ( 2 ) , a n d France (1).
Table I.
Sources of Inventions in the U. S. Aluminum Industry for 1946-1957 Technical Area
Source. 70of Total Inventions
Joining
Finishing
Fabricating
Alloys
Primary Producers Equipment Manufacturers Aircraft Manufacturers Independent Fabricators Foreign Sources Otherd
12% 50 12 12 14
4% 50 26 -
13% 48 7 17 9
75%
In proceeding from invention t o innovation, several functions are involved. After a n invention is recognized, capital, equipment, a n d materials are acquired, labor a n d m a n agement are employed, markets are recognized a n d developed, production techniques implemented a n d channels of distribution established. At any point i n t h e sequence, failure may occur, delays may result, a n d alterations made in order t o make t h e original conception more amenable t o commercial realities. These circumstances plus many other factors contribute t o t h e t i m e lag from invention t o innovation. Examples of intervals of t i m e between conception a n d innovation based primarily on information found in t h e book, “The Source of Invention,”’ are tabulated for both chemical a n d mechanical a n d electrical innovations (Tables I11 & IV). Although there appears t o be no systematic chronological trend or pattern, exactly half of t h e chemical examples showed a n innovation t i m e interval of less t h a n 10 years. In seven of these eight examples, t h e geographical origins of t h e innovation a n d t h e invention were t h e same. By comparison, in t h e eight cases where t h e t i m e interval exceeded 10 years, only three innovations a n d inventions shared t h e s a m e geographical origin. In t h e field of mechanical a n d electrical innovations, only five of t h e 17 examples revealed a t i m e interval from invention t o innovation of less t h a n 10 years. Of t h e five innovations, three had t h e s a m e geographical origin as their respective inventions. T h e geographical origin of innovations with a t i m e s p a n between conception and innovation of t e n or more years was t h e same as t h e geographical origin of t h e inventions in six of 12 examples.
THE ROLE OF UNITED STATES Of t h e 16 chemical innovations, 12 came from United States. Of these dozen innovations, seven were based o n domestic inventions, four were British inventions, a n d one came from Italy. In contrast, there was a lower percentage of U. S. innovations among t h e 17 mechanical a n d electrical innovations. Of t h e nine innovations credited t o t h e United States, seven were derived from domestic inventions a n d one each was based on discoveries in Russia a n d France. When t h e total number of innovations is considered, it is observed t h a t 21 of t h e 33 innovations are credited t o t h e United States. Geographical origins of invention for t h e 21 innovations are: U. S,14; Great Britain, 4; a n d France, Italy, a n d Russia, one each.
20
6
-
5
10 10
‘ Includes government laboratories. commercial R&D laboratories, a n d individual inventors
Table II.
TIME INTERVAL FROM INVENTION TO INNOVATION
-
-
Sources of Inventions for Du Pont’s Product and Process Innovations
Du Pont Innovation
Viscose Rayon Duco Lacquers Tetraethyl Lead (Bromide Process) Tetraethyl Lead (Chloride Process) Cellophane Synthetic Ammonia
1920 1923 1923
Moistureproof Cellophane Synthetic Methanol Dulux Enamels Acetate Rayon Freon
1927
Neoprene Titanium Pigments Cordura HighTenacity Rayon Lucite Sylon Polyvinyl Acetate Rutile Titanium Dioxide Fermate Fungicides Teflon Polyet hylene Titanium Metal Orlon Polyester Polymeric Color Film
1948 1949 1949
1
Table Ill.
Source of Invention
Date
Date of [n\ention
Great Britain Du Pont U. S.A. (General Motors) C . S.A. (Esso)
1892 1920 1921
C. S.A . (Weston) Germany (Dobereinerj Du Pont
1882 1823
1905 1847 1899 1930
1931 1931 1934
France (Sabatierj Sweden (Berzeliusj Germany (Bronnert) U. S. A. (General Motors) Du Pont Germany Du Pont
1936 1939 1940 1941
Germany (Rohm) Du Pont Germany Du Pont
1912 1928 1913 1941
1942 1943 1944 1948
Du Pont Du Pont Great Britain Sweden (Nilson & Peterson) Du Pont Great Britain Du Pont
1942 1941 1933 1887
1924 1924 1926
1927 1928 1929 1931
1924
1926
1931 1795 1934
1942 1941 1949
Time Intervals from Date of Invention
(Same geographical origins for innovation and invention) Innovations
Total examples Chemical examples Mechanical and electrical examples
Less T h a n 5 Years, W
18 31 6
Less T h a n 10 Years.
YC
More T h a n 20 Years, 7c
31 44 18
Journal of Chemical Documentation, Vol. 12, No. 1 , 1972
12 6
18 7
J A M E S H. SCHWARTZ Table IV.
Time Interval between Inventions and Innovations Since 1917
Innovation
Date and Origin
Date of Invention
interval,
and Origin
Years
CHEMICAL INVEKTIOYUS
Freon Crease-resistant fabrics Nylon DDT Silicones Teflon Penicillin Streptomycin Polyethylene Chlordane Orlon Polyester fiber Polypropylene Float glass process Synthetic penicillin Polyimides
1931 (U. S.) 1932 (Gr. Brit.)
1930 (U. S.) 1918 (Gr. Brit.)
1939 (U. S.) 1942 (Switz.) 1943 (U. S.) 1943 (U. S.) 1944 (U. S . ) 1944 (U. S.) 1944 (U. S.) 1945 (U. S.) 1948 (E. S.) 1953 (U. S.) 1957 (U. S.) 1958 (Gr. Brit.) 1959 (Gr. Brit.) 1962 (U. S.)
1928 (U. s.) 1939 (Switz.) 1904 (Gr. Brit.) 1941 ( U . S.) 1928 (Gr. Brit.) 1939 (U. S.) 1933 (Gr. Brit.) 1944 (U. S . ) 1942 (U. S.) 1941 (Gr. Brit.) 1954 (Italy) 1902 (U. S.) 1957 (Gr. Brit.) 1908 (U. S.)
1
14 11
3 39 2
16 5 11 1
6 12
3 56 2
54
MECHASICAL A S D ELECTRICAL INVENTIONS
Zipper Radiooscillator Self winding watch Power steering Helicopter Torque converter Converter coupling Radar Fluorescent lamp Television Cotton picker Jet engine Turbo jet engine Ball point pen Long playing record Xerography Air cushion vehicle
1918 ( U . S.) 1920 (U. S.) 1928 (Switz.) 1931 (U. S.) 1932 (U. S.) 1933 (Gr. Brit.) 1934 (Germany) 1935 (France) 1938 (U. S.) 1941 (U. S.) 1942 (U. S.) 1943 (Gr. Brit.) 1944 (Germany) 1944 (Argentina) 1948 (U. S.) 1950 (U. S.) 1968 (Gr. Brit.)
1891 (U. S.) 1912 (U. S.) 1922 (Gr. Brit.) 1925 (U.S.) 1909 (U. S. S. R.) 1904 (Germany) 1924 (Gr. Brit.) 1922 (U. S.) 1859 (France) 1919 ( u . s.) 1889 (U. S.) 1929 (Gr. Brit.) 1934 (Germany) 1938 (Hungary) 1945 (U. S.) 1937 ( U . S.) 1928 (U. S.)
27
8 6
6 23 29 10 13 79 22
53 14
10 6 3 13 40
THE USE OF PATENTS In 1965, more t h a n 50% of all chemical process patents were put into use before their expiration date.9 Recently, a survey of 39 U. S. corporations showed t h a t 10% of t h e firms sell their patents a n d ideas. Fifty per cent of t h e firms exchange their unwanted patents a n d ideas for inventions a n d conceptions more important t o their product lines. T h e survey also revealed t h a t 87% of t h e companies engage in t h e licensing of patents. According t o t h e survey, t h e average percentage of patents for which a licensee is found when one is sought is 4670.‘
8
Journal of Chemical Documentation, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1 9 7 2
Owing t o stringent tariff barriers, many U. S.firms have chosen t o license foreign manufacturers rather t h a n sell abroad through exports. By 1969, 900 U. S.corporations were reporting royalties and licensing fees from their own foreign branches, affiliates, and subsidiaries.l? D a t a on t h e extent of overseas licensing has only been compiled since 1961. A study of 1745 licenses from 1961 t o 1967 showed Europe a s t h e prime target for licenses. Of t h e total licenses, 772 (44%) covered operations in Western Europe, 456 (26%) in Asia, 367 (21%) in t h e Western Hemisphere, 86 (5%)in Oceania, a n d 64 (4%) in Africa. Another survey of 191 companies conducted by t h e N a tional Industrial Conference Board showed t h a t licensing contributes t o over half of foreign income for 20% of t h e firms. However, more t h a n 50% of t h e firms received less t h a n 10% of their total foreign revenues from 1icensing.Il Revenues from licensing are expressed in two waysrevenue from licensing a firm’s own subsidiaries, affiliates, a n d branches and revenue from licensing independent foreign firms. Income from t h e former increased from $157 million in 1961 t o $438 million in 1967 a n d $640 million in 1969. T h e rise in income from t h e latter has been smaller, from $263 million in 1961 t o $348 million a n d $360 million in 1967 a n d 1969, respectively.Il3 IJ Licensed technology has largely been responsible for transforming J a p a n into t h e world’s third ranking industrial power. In 1970, J a p a n bought 10 licenses for each license sold.12 Of a total of $348 million spent on licensing, Japanese industry paid $209 million t o U. S.firms.’”
LITERATURE CITED (1) Jewkes, J., Sawers, D., and Stillerman, R., “The Sources of Invention,” 2nd ed., Macmillan, London, 1969. ( 2 ) Jones, S. V., “Patents Adding to Earnings,” ,Veu Yorh Times, July 25, 1971. ( 3 ) McDermott, A. P., “Licensing is Middle Route,” Innovation World, Directory Issue, 6-8, 1971. (4) Morgenthaler, G., “Are You Sitting on Potential Profits,” Innocation 20,29-35 (1971j. (5) Mueller, W. F., in “The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity,” Princeton, N. J . , Princeton University Press, 1962. (6) Peck, M. J., Ibid., 1962. ( 7 ) Sanders, B. S., Ibid., 1962. (8) Van dem Breemt, J. H., “Patents by Country of Origin of Invention,” Harcard Business Reuieic 45(2), 57-62 (MarchApril 1967). (9) Willson, R. C., “Wanted More Patentable Ideas,” Chem. Eng. 72(1),59-62 (Jan. 4, 1965). (10) “Export of Technology to Japan,“ Prod. Eng. 41(18), 12-13 (Aug. 31, 1970). (11) “Foreign Licenses Make More, Satisfy Less,” Chem. Eng. Yews 47(32), 20-21 (Aug. 4, 1969). (12) ”Japan: Now the Imitator Shows the Way,” Business Week, (2124), 88-89,92 (May 16, 1970). (13) “Knowhow Jumps the Language Barrier,” Brtsiness Week. (2155), 121-122 (Dec. 19, 1970).
