When will UK (+other countries) not be able to buy Chinese Electronics?

[mrf184]

I don't give any fuck where manufacturing ends up moving to, I just care that cheap manufacturing services (PCB, PCBA, etc) and parts remain affordable to the hobbyist, and that there exist a "patent haven" for small corporations so that we can continue to compete and drive down costs. I sell a line of products I developed myself, and even then I'm pretty sure it infringes at least a few patents I have never heard of. It would greatly harm innovation if big corporations can just shut me down at will which is the case in the west.

If manufacturing moves back to the US or europe, I'll bet that everything will be 5 times as expensive and we will all be worse off, just to pad the pockets of inefficiently run corporations. It has fuckall to do with labor costs, just look at the tour of JLCPCB factory and compare the amount of automation with any typical US based PCB fab. I'll let you in on a little secret: labor in China is expensive too now. US corporations *can* compete with China on price if they wanted to (look at costco's attempts at keeping chicken prices low, tesla's 18650 manufacturing, and oshpark which is a good deal for small PCBs), but instead they sit on their asses and insist on being inefficient and demanding protectionism. Do you like paying $100 for a chip? Well that's how much the AD9363 costs with the inefficient western supply chain, but I can get it at $10 from reputable Chinese suppliers. Prepare for hobbyist electronics progress to turn back decades if we choose protectionism over competition.

[MK14]

Do you like paying $100 for a chip? Well that's how much the AD9363 costs with the inefficient western supply chain, but I can get it at $10 from reputable Chinese suppliers.

The real parts, cost a lot of money. Because you are paying the real costs that were incurred for fully making the chip, now and in the future.
So, you are paying for the western costs of researching and developing the chip(s).
Manufacturing the chips, WITHOUT destroying the environment with dangerous chemicals, and turning the local river green, highly toxic and killing all fish in it for 5 miles.
Making it compliant with the necessary EMC and safety regulations, so it doesn't interfere with other things and does not accidentally (electrocute) kill or injure someone.
You are paying (in all likelihood) for the development of future chips of this type.
You are paying the real distribution costs, taxes and patent/licence fees, and not dodging those.
You are safe in the knowledge, it is probably a genuine part (not a fake/clone/copy/inferior), which will be reliable, and have the durability to last a long time.
Etc etc.

So, yes it can cost $100.
But that is fair enough for a quality/reliable/genuine and a long term lasting, sustainable solution.
Which meets its genuine datasheet specifications.

Do I want one which costs only $10, but is not really the genuine part, will break after 3 months. Does not meet the datasheet specification, the IP/design has been stolen from the people who paid for and put the effort in to invent and create it.
That is making parts of the world toxic. Can be dangerous and interfere with things it was not suppose to.
Does not work properly.
Etc etc.
No!, I don't want it.

[Cerebus]

I sell a line of products I developed myself, and even then I'm pretty sure it infringes at least a few patents I have never heard of. It would greatly harm innovation if big corporations can just shut me down at will which is the case in the west.

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas? Or are you claiming that you know it infringes a bunch of bullshit-patents but has genuine innovative qualities of its own? If the latter, fine, but if your 'innovation' is merely avoiding having development or licensing costs then  it's just copying stuff to line your own pockets at the expense of others which isn't innovation just petty theft.

[tggzzz]

I sell a line of products I developed myself, and even then I'm pretty sure it infringes at least a few patents I have never heard of. It would greatly harm innovation if big corporations can just shut me down at will which is the case in the west.

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas?

Easy. You (accidentally) use patents valid in areas A,B,C, and innovate in area M.

This is why large corporations regularly "swap patents" by agreeing not to sue for specified patents in a portfolio. Such patents are often valued by number, not weight.

Remember that patents were invented specifically so that other people/companies could use them, for suitable remuneration of course. That way patents weakened the medieval guild system which hoarded trade secrets.

[coppice]

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas?

Is that a serious question? If you develop something which uses your own novel work, but nothing else that was novel in the last 20 years you would be in the clear. Most people are not going to be easily in the clear if they are working in a domain that is moving faster than glacial.

[Cerebus]

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas?

Is that a serious question? If you develop something which uses your own novel work, but nothing else that was novel in the last 20 years you would be in the clear. Most people are not going to be easily in the clear if they are working in a domain that is moving faster than glacial.

It was a paragraph, not an isolated sentence. Read the whole thing together with the next sentence and it is abundantly clear that I did not say what you have inferred. Also, he used the word infringe which one must take to mean using current, not expired patents.

[Cerebus]

I sell a line of products I developed myself, and even then I'm pretty sure it infringes at least a few patents I have never heard of. It would greatly harm innovation if big corporations can just shut me down at will which is the case in the west.

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas?

Easy. You (accidentally) use patents valid in areas A,B,C, and innovate in area M.

Again, I refer you to the whole paragraph, in a context where the person I'm replying to explicitly said infringe.

Have we really reached the level on here where context is nothing and it has become impossible to deliver an idea that is subtle enough to have to rely on being expressed across several sentences?

[coppice]

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas?

Is that a serious question? If you develop something which uses your own novel work, but nothing else that was novel in the last 20 years you would be in the clear. Most people are not going to be easily in the clear if they are working in a domain that is moving faster than glacial.

It was a paragraph, not an isolated sentence. Read the whole thing together with the next sentence and it is abundantly clear that I did not say what you have inferred. Also, he used the word infringe which one must take to mean using current, not expired patents.

I had read the whole of the original message. With your additional clarification I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make.

[xaxaxa]

It's easy to develop something and not know if it is already patented. For example in my VNA software I have implemented several calibration types using formulas I derived myself. That is not going to help if the calibration types themselves are patented, but IMO they should not be patent worthy because any casual observer can come up with them (there are only so many ways to fill a linear system of equations and they are all enumerable. It is also fairly easy to tell which combinations are practical and which are not.) Currently I'm only competing with a few other low-cost VNA vendors, but in the future if I improve the design enough that the accuracy approaches the higher end instruments, Keysight etc may decide to mount an attack if they deem me a threat. That is why I'm considering moving all R&D and presence to China (manufacturing and logistics is already there).

[Cerebus]

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas?

Is that a serious question? If you develop something which uses your own novel work, but nothing else that was novel in the last 20 years you would be in the clear. Most people are not going to be easily in the clear if they are working in a domain that is moving faster than glacial.

It was a paragraph, not an isolated sentence. Read the whole thing together with the next sentence and it is abundantly clear that I did not say what you have inferred. Also, he used the word infringe which one must take to mean using current, not expired patents.

I had read the whole of the original message. With your additional clarification I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make.

I started to draft a reply that would explain it in alternative words, but that would not also seem like I was taking the piss out of your inability to understand what I was saying. I deleted it half way through because there was no way to do it without it seeming like "Here's how to parse a sentence dummy!" or [Fx: Blackadder] "Baldrick, let me explain that to you in small words" — no matter how careful or neutral the wording I choose, or what structure I used. I am genuinely at a loss to see how I could clarify or simplify my point further without it seeming that I was deliberately trying to mock your inability to understand what I wrote and/or how I wrote it. No matter how much it may look like it, this is not an attempt at sophistry.

[Cerebus]

It's easy to develop something and not know if it is already patented. For example in my VNA software I have implemented several calibration types using formulas I derived myself. That is not going to help if the calibration types themselves are patented, but IMO they should not be patent worthy because any casual observer can come up with them (there are only so many ways to fill a linear system of equations and they are all enumerable. It is also fairly easy to tell which combinations are practical and which are not.) Currently I'm only competing with a few other low-cost VNA vendors, but in the future if I improve the design enough that the accuracy approaches the higher end instruments, Keysight etc may decide to mount an attack if they deem me a threat. That is why I'm considering moving all R&D and presence to China (manufacturing and logistics is already there).

Your case covers exactly what I meant by bullshit-patents. Let's make no mistake here, the patent system is broken, perhaps irrevocably so. There are far, far too many obvious patents granted (sometimes multiple times to multiple patentees) and not infrequently patents granted that cover existing well known methods. The patent system as is extant now does not serve the original purpose of patents, but merely biases the system in favour of organizations large enough to game the system.

[rsjsouza]

Do you like paying $100 for a chip? Well that's how much the AD9363 costs with the inefficient western supply chain, but I can get it at $10 from reputable Chinese suppliers.

The real parts, cost a lot of money. Because you are paying the real costs that were incurred for fully making the chip, now and in the future.
So, you are paying for the western costs of researching and developing the chip(s).
Manufacturing the chips, WITHOUT destroying the environment with dangerous chemicals, and turning the local river green, highly toxic and killing all fish in it for 5 miles.
Making it compliant with the necessary EMC and safety regulations, so it doesn't interfere with other things and does not accidentally (electrocute) kill or injure someone.
You are paying (in all likelihood) for the development of future chips of this type.
You are paying the real distribution costs, taxes and patent/licence fees, and not dodging those.
You are safe in the knowledge, it is probably a genuine part (not a fake/clone/copy/inferior), which will be reliable, and have the durability to last a long time.
Etc etc.

So, yes it can cost $100.
But that is fair enough for a quality/reliable/genuine and a long term lasting, sustainable solution.
Which meets its genuine datasheet specifications.

Agree 100%. Remember the process of developing true innovation/basic research is inherently inefficient - many routes and attempts tried and failed, while a few can see the light of the day. That is the difference between the $100 AD9363 and the carbon copied $10 that simply traveled an already paved road.

Do I want one which costs only $10, but is not really the genuine part, will break after 3 months. Does not meet the datasheet specification, the IP/design has been stolen from the people who paid for and put the effort in to invent and create it.
That is making parts of the world toxic. Can be dangerous and interfere with things it was not suppose to.

Also, the manufacturing costs fall into testing and reliability. Despite you can try and create additional part numbers with less robust features and specifications to scoop the worst offenders, there is a significant number that is literally trashed during the process improvement. And that is discounting the price of warranties and returns. Your $10 part has none of that to worry about, I am pretty sure.

I sell a line of products I developed myself, and even then I'm pretty sure it infringes at least a few patents I have never heard of. It would greatly harm innovation if big corporations can just shut me down at will which is the case in the west.

Erm, in what way are you innovating if you rely on using someone else's patented ideas? Or are you claiming that you know it infringes a bunch of bullshit-patents but has genuine innovative qualities of its own? If the latter, fine, but if your 'innovation' is merely avoiding having development or licensing costs then  it's just copying stuff to line your own pockets at the expense of others which isn't innovation just petty theft.

For this side discussion, I think Cerebus' post is an either/or scenario followed by if/then/else: either you are stealing someone else's patented ideas (first sentence) or you are innovating on top of existing innovations. If the latter, everything is fine; else you are simply trying to get away without paying credit to who is due.

It's easy to develop something and not know if it is already patented.

I can see that. Weren't soft buttons patented by one of the big cellphone manufacturers (Motorola or Nokia or Apple)? If so, every small transistor tester from Alibaba would violate that (a frivolous patent, IMHO).

[Cerebus]

For this side discussion, I think Cerebus' post is an either/or scenario followed by if/then/else: either you are stealing someone else's patented ideas (first sentence) or you are innovating on top of existing innovations. If the latter, everything is fine; else you are simply trying to get away without paying credit to who is due.

If you want to go all Boolean on me, then it's this (which strictly covers more than the original):

Code: [Select]

assert infringing patent(s);

if (innovating)
{
    if (patents are bullshit ones OR expired)
        all OK (Morally, but possibly not technically)
    else
        clever thief
}
else
{
    if (patents are bullshit ones OR expired)
        just dull copying (and possible technically theft)
    else
        dull thief
}


[coppice]

For this side discussion, I think Cerebus' post is an either/or scenario followed by if/then/else: either you are stealing someone else's patented ideas (first sentence) or you are innovating on top of existing innovations. If the latter, everything is fine; else you are simply trying to get away without paying credit to who is due.

If you want to go all Boolean on me, then it's this (which strictly covers more than the original):

Code: [Select]

assert infringing patent(s);

if (innovating)
{
    if (patents are bullshit ones OR expired)
        all OK (Morally, but possibly not technically)
    else
        clever thief
}
else
{
    if (patents are bullshit ones OR expired)
        just dull copying (and possible technically theft)
    else
        dull thief
}


Ah, so that makes it crystal clear that you are failing to grasp what others are saying.

[rstofer]

You can't patent an idea but you can patent the physical realization of the idea:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea

You can't copyright an idea but you can copyright the implementation of an idea:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/15/protecting-ideas-can-ideas-be-protected-or-patented/id=48009/

Nobody in the technical world (chips and such) wants to patent anything.  If they do, they have to disclose how it works and that's the last thing they want their competitors knowing.  Years of R&D and untold amounts of money disclosed in a patent application.

There are a lot of patents that can and should be challenged because they are 'obvious'.

https://www.gordonrees.com/newsroom/2012/new-ways-to-challenge-patents-both-before-and-after-they-issue

[Cerebus]

For this side discussion, I think Cerebus' post is an either/or scenario followed by if/then/else: either you are stealing someone else's patented ideas (first sentence) or you are innovating on top of existing innovations. If the latter, everything is fine; else you are simply trying to get away without paying credit to who is due.

If you want to go all Boolean on me, then it's this (which strictly covers more than the original):

Code: [Select]

assert infringing patent(s);

if (innovating)
{
    if (patents are bullshit ones OR expired)
        all OK (Morally, but possibly not technically)
    else
        clever thief
}
else
{
    if (patents are bullshit ones OR expired)
        just dull copying (and possible technically theft)
    else
        dull thief
}


Ah, so that makes it crystal clear that you are failing to grasp what others are saying.

Sorry, I thought you just didn't grasp what I was on about. It's now crystal clear that you were just being trying to be unpleasant.