Who is more innovative: the US ore the EU?

[Turambar]

I will add my point of view, but keep in mind it is merely anecdotal.

I moved to Germany 4 years ago to start working with a coatings manufacturer. We specialize in coatings for the printing and packaging industry. Some of my colleagues at the lab are very creative and they have had some ideas concerning new types of coatings and new effects for the packaging market. However, many times the raw materials that we need in order to formulate those coatings are not allowed to be used on food packaging application within the EU. In the EU, all chemicals are regulated by something called REACH . This gigantic piece of legislation has been in force since 2007, and at the time was the longest and most complex legislation in the EU's history. I call it a bureaucratic nightmare. Many of the chemicals that we cannot use are not on the allowed list due to health concerns, but many were banned without even enough research as to whether the things were hazardous in the first place. Many chemicals are in this list due to the cancer scare, and the logic behind is protecting the health of the EU people, which I understand. However, since 2007 many new components have been developed and have hit the market in Asia and the US, but the legislation moves too slow to include them in the list, so they cannot be used by us. Meanwhile, Japanese, Korean and American companies are coming up with new products which we know we could make, and even outperform thanks to our know-how. But, thanks to REACH, our hands are tied.

So I think that at least in the chemical industry regulation plays a huge role in diminishing innovation.

 

[arkirk]

I will add my point of view, but keep in mind it is merely anecdotal.

I moved to Germany 4 years ago to start working with a coatings manufacturer. We specialize in coatings for the printing and packaging industry. Some of my colleagues at the lab are very creative and they have had some ideas concerning new types of coatings and new effects for the packaging market. However, many times the raw materials that we need in order to formulate those coatings are not allowed to be used on food packaging application within the EU. In the EU, all chemicals are regulated by something called REACH . This gigantic piece of legislation has been in force since 2007, and at the time was the longest and most complex legislation in the EU's history. I call it a bureaucratic nightmare. Many of the chemicals that we cannot use are not on the allowed list due to health concerns, but many were banned without even enough research as to whether the things were hazardous in the first place. Many chemicals are in this list due to the cancer scare, and the logic behind is protecting the health of the EU people, which I understand. However, since 2007 many new components have been developed and have hit the market in Asia and the US, but the legislation moves too slow to include them in the list, so they cannot be used by us. Meanwhile, Japanese, Korean and American companies are coming up with new products which we know we could make, and even outperform thanks to our know-how. But, thanks to REACH, our hands are tied.

So I think that at least in the chemical industry regulation plays a huge role in diminishing innovation.

And deregulation plays a big role in POLLUTION. If there is something that is on the list that should not be there. do the research necessary to get it approved. You complainers always want something for nothing.

 

[NobleSavage]

It's an easy call that the US is more innovative. Looking only to patents issued, the US greatly outdoes the EU.

View attachment 3617

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/patents-issued-fiscal.html

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Fileatent_applications_to_the_EPO,_2012_(%C2%B9)_(number)_YB15.png

And somehow you think this stuff means something. We are in the midst of an environmental crisis and we can have all sorts of new patents for unneeded things filed by people trying to get on easy street. It has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH INNOVATION.

The only way we are going to get out of the environmental crisis is to innovate our way out. There is no chance in hell the world is going to change trajectory 180 degrees or turn the clock back. It just isn't going to happen, so it might be good for your blood pressure to worry about something else. What will happen is that clean renewable energy will get cheaper, easier, and more convenient than fossil fuels and the problem will be solved.

 

[NobleSavage]

I will add my point of view, but keep in mind it is merely anecdotal.

I moved to Germany 4 years ago to start working with a coatings manufacturer. We specialize in coatings for the printing and packaging industry. Some of my colleagues at the lab are very creative and they have had some ideas concerning new types of coatings and new effects for the packaging market. However, many times the raw materials that we need in order to formulate those coatings are not allowed to be used on food packaging application within the EU. In the EU, all chemicals are regulated by something called REACH . This gigantic piece of legislation has been in force since 2007, and at the time was the longest and most complex legislation in the EU's history. I call it a bureaucratic nightmare. Many of the chemicals that we cannot use are not on the allowed list due to health concerns, but many were banned without even enough research as to whether the things were hazardous in the first place. Many chemicals are in this list due to the cancer scare, and the logic behind is protecting the health of the EU people, which I understand. However, since 2007 many new components have been developed and have hit the market in Asia and the US, but the legislation moves too slow to include them in the list, so they cannot be used by us. Meanwhile, Japanese, Korean and American companies are coming up with new products which we know we could make, and even outperform thanks to our know-how. But, thanks to REACH, our hands are tied.

So I think that at least in the chemical industry regulation plays a huge role in diminishing innovation.

And deregulation plays a big role in POLLUTION. If there is something that is on the list that should not be there. do the research necessary to get it approved. You complainers always want something for nothing.

And regulations play a big part in pollution. We could have nuclear power that is safer than solar and wind, but there is so much red tape from the do-gooders that we are still stuck on coal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And deregulation plays a big role in POLLUTION. If there is something that is on the list that should not be there. do the research necessary to get it approved. You complainers always want something for nothing.

In many cases the issue is not research.

1) It's much easier to regulate the new technologies than the old ones. If you replace X which kills 1000/yr with Y that kills 100/yr it's going to be a very hard thing to do because the chicken littles will point to the 100 and the entrenched interests will do their darndest to stop it.

2) Government has shown that it's willing to be totally unreasonable with regard to nuclear power--denying operating permits for no good reason. Thus even with regulatory approval and numbers that say it's a good idea utilities are very reluctant to build nuke plants.

 

[Tigers!]

Would a comparison of science Nobel prizes - EU vs. USA - show anything?

Or Ignobel for that matter.

 

[dystopian]

Would a comparison of science Nobel prizes - EU vs. USA - show anything?

Not especially, no. The countries that form the EU would certainly win that contest; but using nobel prizes as a metric to determine innovativeness is a horrible idea for any number of reasons.

This applies even more to the ignobel prize which doesn't have a consistent means to determine who gets one. Sometimes it goes to straight out bad science (like homeopathy), and other times it goes to articles and a papers that are perfectly valid but "silly" science (silly being anything from scientists having a little fun in the way they present their otherwise valid findings to seemingly superfluous research). That said, the US claims 33% of all ig nobel prizes, followed by the UK at 11.6% and Japan at 9.7%; I couldn't quite determine how much % the EU countries combined represent; I would guess roughly the same.

 

[untermensche]

What is innovation?

Is it always something good?

The US has a wonderful propaganda system. It is able to project through constant effort an illusion of itself and the world very well. An illusion that many buy into.

Is this innovation good?

Was the innovation of credit default swaps good?

Are all those US patents on weapons and weapon technology good?

 

[SimpleDon]

Does the extra socialism in Europe slow down or dull new innovations? Research into diseases? R&D for better pharmaceuticals. Green Tech?

I think that hands down the US is more innovative than the EU. But I don't think that you can blame it on the EU's greater tendency to have more social democratic programs. The US has strong advantages in the level of higher education, in support for research and development by corporations and by government and a much better history of innovation that means that the US rewards and tolerates the risks much better than Europe.

 

[crispy]

I will add my point of view, but keep in mind it is merely anecdotal.

I moved to Germany 4 years ago to start working with a coatings manufacturer. We specialize in coatings for the printing and packaging industry. Some of my colleagues at the lab are very creative and they have had some ideas concerning new types of coatings and new effects for the packaging market. However, many times the raw materials that we need in order to formulate those coatings are not allowed to be used on food packaging application within the EU. In the EU, all chemicals are regulated by something called REACH . This gigantic piece of legislation has been in force since 2007, and at the time was the longest and most complex legislation in the EU's history. I call it a bureaucratic nightmare. Many of the chemicals that we cannot use are not on the allowed list due to health concerns, but many were banned without even enough research as to whether the things were hazardous in the first place. Many chemicals are in this list due to the cancer scare, and the logic behind is protecting the health of the EU people, which I understand. However, since 2007 many new components have been developed and have hit the market in Asia and the US, but the legislation moves too slow to include them in the list, so they cannot be used by us. Meanwhile, Japanese, Korean and American companies are coming up with new products which we know we could make, and even outperform thanks to our know-how. But, thanks to REACH, our hands are tied.

So I think that at least in the chemical industry regulation plays a huge role in diminishing innovation.

My highlight: actually this is the correct way to do it. You want to market a new compound, you have to support that its safe for the environment and humans.

Instead, why dont you develop your idea, and just market the product in the countries where the compounds aren't banned?

 

[SimpleDon]

You might be right; but if you are, the stats you presented don't demonstrate it.

The US Patent Office and the EPO grant patents to both resident and non-resident entities; The text below the graph at your first link includes:

An important aspect of this new set of patents is that most corporate-owned U.S. patents are actually owned by foreign corporations stemming from inventions first created outside of the U.S.

The second link is to data from the EPO, where patent applications to the EPO from the EU 28 can be seen to outnumber patent applications to the EPO from outside Europe, including from the USA.

Neither set of data can tell us how many patents granted, nor how many patent applications, to the EPO and the USPTO in aggregate, originated from innovators in Europe, vs how many originated from innovators in the US.

About a quarter of all European Patents are granted to US entities; I can't find the stats for US patents granted to European entities, but for sure many innovators on both sides of the Atlantic apply for patents on the other side of the ocean, as well as applying to their local patent office.

A wide range of statistics are published by the IP5 - the organisation representing the world's five largest patent offices* - in Chapter 3 of their 2013 Statistics Report, they show a whole slew of different stats that might be relevant; I don't have the time to break these down and adjust them for population, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious at all from these stats that the the US is ahead of the EPC in any relevant measure; It does seem that China is way ahead of either the US or the EPC, but I would like to see population adjusted figures for all of these.

If anyone has the time and patience to winkle out a population adjusted figure from these IP5 stats for each region's unique patents applied for and/or unique patents granted, then perhaps that will go some way towards answering the OP question.





* The members of IP5 are: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

I agree that patents don't tell the whole story but I still believe that the US is more innovative than the EU. Look at auxlus' post, he lists many more markers than just patents.

If nothing else per capita GDP is about 30% higher in the US than in Europe. This means that there is more money to risk in the US and that more people are willing to take the risk in the US.

My son certainly is an example of this. He has an MD but except for his intern and residency cycles he doesn't deal with patients. He does medical research. And now he is starting out on his own, he thinks that he has an idea that will work and he is willing to take the considerable risk involved of developing it. What helps him is that his wife is an IP attorney and earns a healthy six figure salary. In addition we as his parents would be more than willing to help them, they support the most important children in the world right now, our grandchildren.

My German friends just don't understand why son is willing to forfeit the relative high earnings of being a medical doctor in order to take this risk. Very few of my American friends have questioned him.

 

[dystopian]

and a much better history of innovation

...what? You base this on what exactly? Also, that's rather circular right there, isn't it? The US is more innovative because it has a 'much' 'better' history of innovation? What?

that means that the US rewards and tolerates the risks much better than Europe.

Talking purely on the business side, European economic culture tends to be risk averse. This is the primary difference in the venture capitalism climate between the US and Europe. In the US, someone can attract large investments, fuck up, go bankrupt, and then attract large investments for a new venture. And he can then do it all over again. To the European mind, this aspect of American economic culture rewards incompetence; and indeed it does promote various undesirable outcomes. On the other hand, ignoring how it does at times reward incompetence or fraud, it also means overall more attempts at setting up new ventures, which means there's likely to be a net positive. In Europe it's much harder to be incompetent when millions of dollars/euros are involved. Fail, and won't get a second chance, not as easily as you would in the US at least. The downside, of course, is that it's harder for startups to acquire enough money to scale up. Another difference is that in the US, start-ups tend to be concentrated much more in central hubs like silicon valley. We've seen the development of such hubs in the EU (Eindhoven has been pointed to as one that could be regarded as the European S.V), but that scene is much more diffused than that in the US. The culture does appear to be slowly changing, though.

However, one should not confuse the ability of a country to produce more tech startups with innovation perse, as already previously argued.

 

[dystopian]

If nothing else per capita GDP is about 30% higher in the US than in Europe. This means that there is more money to risk in the US and that more people are willing to take the risk in the US.

25% actually; though this an unfair comparison since the US is a unified country (with unified regulation which makes it easier to concentrate/raise venture capital) whereas the EU is not. Many individual EU countries actually have higher per capita GDP than the US, but do not produce a similar increase in per capita venture capital; demonstrating that having more money to risk doesn't mean more people are willing to take the risk.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You might be right; but if you are, the stats you presented don't demonstrate it.

The US Patent Office and the EPO grant patents to both resident and non-resident entities; The text below the graph at your first link includes:

The second link is to data from the EPO, where patent applications to the EPO from the EU 28 can be seen to outnumber patent applications to the EPO from outside Europe, including from the USA.

Neither set of data can tell us how many patents granted, nor how many patent applications, to the EPO and the USPTO in aggregate, originated from innovators in Europe, vs how many originated from innovators in the US.

About a quarter of all European Patents are granted to US entities; I can't find the stats for US patents granted to European entities, but for sure many innovators on both sides of the Atlantic apply for patents on the other side of the ocean, as well as applying to their local patent office.

A wide range of statistics are published by the IP5 - the organisation representing the world's five largest patent offices* - in Chapter 3 of their 2013 Statistics Report, they show a whole slew of different stats that might be relevant; I don't have the time to break these down and adjust them for population, but it doesn't seem to me to be obvious at all from these stats that the the US is ahead of the EPC in any relevant measure; It does seem that China is way ahead of either the US or the EPC, but I would like to see population adjusted figures for all of these.

If anyone has the time and patience to winkle out a population adjusted figure from these IP5 stats for each region's unique patents applied for and/or unique patents granted, then perhaps that will go some way towards answering the OP question.





* The members of IP5 are: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japanese Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

I agree that patents don't tell the whole story but I still believe that the US is more innovative than the EU. Look at auxlus' post, he lists many more markers than just patents.

If nothing else per capita GDP is about 30% higher in the US than in Europe. This means that there is more money to risk in the US and that more people are willing to take the risk in the US.

My son certainly is an example of this. He has an MD but except for his intern and residency cycles he doesn't deal with patients. He does medical research. And now he is starting out on his own, he thinks that he has an idea that will work and he is willing to take the considerable risk involved of developing it. What helps him is that his wife is an IP attorney and earns a healthy six figure salary. In addition we as his parents would be more than willing to help them, they support the most important children in the world right now, our grandchildren.

My German friends just don't understand why son is willing to forfeit the relative high earnings of being a medical doctor in order to take this risk. Very few of my American friends have questioned him.

I predict that you'll be spending a lot more time with your grand children! My partner and I (he was the MD with the idea!) also started a company years ago with a disruptive medical device. Our device became the "standard of care". We were well capitalized. We both have great understanding wives. We had tons of support. But it was the absolutely most difficult four years of my life! But rewarding at the same time. I hope your son does well.

 

[barbos]

I think people here confuse innovations with starting new businesses. US is great at that.
But great business idea can be just that - great business idea and hardly innovation.
I mean, I have a hard time to call cow-clicking games or instagram an innovation.
OK, google I can give you that but, they still started as another "Yahoo", they just turned out to be better.
Also, US has an advantage of a single and very large market.
As for real technological innovation then I have to admit that overall US appears to be better (IBM,Intel and now Google)

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think people here confuse innovations with starting new businesses. US is great at that.
But great business idea can be just that - great business idea and hardly innovation.
I mean, I have a hard time to call cow-clicking games or instagram an innovation.
OK, google I can give you that but, they still started as another "Yahoo", they just turned out to be better.
Also, US has an advantage of a single and very large market.
As for real technological innovation then I have to admit that overall US appears to be better (IBM,Intel and now Google)

What is the difference between an innovation and an idea?

 

[barbos]

I think people here confuse innovations with starting new businesses. US is great at that.
But great business idea can be just that - great business idea and hardly innovation.
I mean, I have a hard time to call cow-clicking games or instagram an innovation.
OK, google I can give you that but, they still started as another "Yahoo", they just turned out to be better.
Also, US has an advantage of a single and very large market.
As for real technological innovation then I have to admit that overall US appears to be better (IBM,Intel and now Google)

What is the difference between an innovation and an idea?

I said "business idea" not just "idea"
"Business idea" is a business idea, "Innovation" is something which is technology/science related and has a potential to do some good. Cowclicking is a 100% money making business idea with no other potential whatsoever.

 

[dystopian]

I think people here confuse innovations with starting new businesses. US is great at that.
But great business idea can be just that - great business idea and hardly innovation.
I mean, I have a hard time to call cow-clicking games or instagram an innovation.
OK, google I can give you that but, they still started as another "Yahoo", they just turned out to be better.
Also, US has an advantage of a single and very large market.
As for real technological innovation then I have to admit that overall US appears to be better (IBM,Intel and now Google)

What is the difference between an innovation and an idea?

Innovation is specifically defined as the introduction of *new* things and methods. An idea, on the other hand is a mental concept/notion; in this context it specifically refers to such a concept as it relates to a plan of action/implementation.

So, looking at business then: there's plenty of startup and product ideas that might be put into practice... but few of these ideas are actually new; and therefore innovative.

 

[fromderinside]

It's an easy call that the US is more innovative. Looking only to patents issued, the US greatly outdoes the EU.

View attachment 3617

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/09/patents-issued-fiscal.html

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...ations_to_the_EPO,_2012_(¹)_(number)_YB15.png

Uh, if one posts the other table one sees that US hasd a little over half the number of patents of EU.

...so all this 'justification' and 'rationaization' has to go, right?

 

[lpetrich]

What is the difference between an innovation and an idea?

A big difference. An idea can be a me-too sort of idea, an imitation of something existing.