Who is more innovative: the US ore the EU?

[NobleSavage]

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

 

[Trausti]

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



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

 

[Axulus]

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

Somewhat anecdotal, but where have the biggest consumer innovations of the last decade risen from?

Major internet hubs - Google, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Wikipedia, Amazon, Twitter, Netflix- All started in US

Major tech innovation - Apple iphones, virtual reality (Valve, Oculus), augmented reality (Microsoft hololens, Magic Leap), self driving car tech (google, uber), electric cars (tesla), microprocessor design breakthroughs (IBM, Intel) video card breakthroughs (Nvidia, Radeon), CGI and computer animation breakthroughs - various hollywood studios, Pixar, DreamWorks, etc. Although there is definitely some Asian company and, to a lesser extent, EU based company involvement in various new computer tech breakthroughs, it is heavily skewed toward US companies.

From a consumer product standpoint, US is king.

Let's also remember that the EU has a larger population as well (500M vs 330M).

Another thing to try: take a look at the worlds 500 most valuable publically traded companies:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1fda5794-169f-11e5-b07f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3hzybtVFH

How many are US based that didn't exist 20 years ago? How about EU based? I see several towards the top from the US, none from the EU.

How many are US based in general? How about EU based. The only real strong innovation based companies I see towards the top of the list that are EU based are in the pharmaceutical sector.

 

[bilby]

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

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).

 

[Axulus]

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.

A further objection: the granting of a patent itself tells you nothing about the value of the patent, merely that it meets the minimum requirements to be granted such from the granting office.

Currently, the Quadro scam has re-emerged in a different guise, this time as a gimmick that is supposed to detect human heartbeats over long distances and through any barriers. The James Randi Educational Foundation, in contact with Sandia Labs in Albuquerque, New Mexico, suggested to them an experimental protocol that was then followed, and definitive tests of the “DKL LifeGuard” device showed clearly that it simply did not work; it was nothing more than a dowsing rod, operating on the same principles as the traditional forked stick. Yet this device has received a patent from the U.S. Patent Office!

...

The U.S. Patent Office, at one time issued patents only after a working model of a proposed device or system had been produced. Regularly today, plans for perpetual motion and free-energy machines, cheap-and-easy counterfeit money detectors, control systems triggered by thought-waves, and devices that find drugs, guns, minerals, and oil, are received by the office. Are working examples still required by the office? No. It now seems that all that is needed is for a “master” to look over the application, and rubber-stamp it.

I hold in my hand a device that many of you will have run into when you tried to spend a $50 or $100-bill. It’s called “The Counterfeit Detector Pen.” The makers claim that a phony bill stroked by this pen will register a black line, while a genuine bill will show an amber-colored line. And it bears U.S. Patent Number 5,063,163. The patent examiner who approved this patent read that counterfeiters would use cheap recycled paper, which has starch content, and since this is an iodine pen, the cheap paper would turn black, as starch does when in contact with iodine. Do you really think that a counterfeiter would use cheap paper to print on, folks? Of course not. But this pen has made a lot of folks very happy.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/james-randi-on-quackery-and-the-need-for-science-education/

 

[Trausti]

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.

Hmm, but the US is the number one originator of patents in the EU.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/06/us-no-1-in-patent-filings-at-the-european-patent-office/id=48404/

 

[bilby]

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.

Hmm, but the US is the number one originator of patents in the EU.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/06/us-no-1-in-patent-filings-at-the-european-patent-office/id=48404/

So?

That doesn't tell you anything other than that the US is bigger than any EU member state.

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).

 

[Axulus]

Some more concrete data that suggests a large gap between US and EU innovation:

Venture capital investment for 2014:

US share of new global venture capital investment: 68.2%
Europe as a whole: 15.3%

Rounds of Angel investment:
US: 213
Europe: 79

Rounds of incubator investment:
US: 205
Europe: 67

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUA...Global_VC_insights_and_trends_report_2014.pdf

R&D Spending:

The United States remains the world’s largest R&D investor with projected $465 Billion spending in 2014. This is a globally competitive level of research intensity equal to 2.8% of U.S. GDP

...

Share of Total Global R&D Spending (estimated at $1.6 trillion in 2014)

2014:
US: 31.1%
Europe: 21.7%

2013
US: 31.4%
Europe: 22.4%

2012:
US: 32.0%
Europe: 23.1%

Percent of GDP into R&D spending:

US: 2.8%
Europe: 1.8%

http://www.battelle.org/docs/tpp/2014_global_rd_funding_forecast.pdf

 

[dystopian]

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

Patents do not equate innovation. That said, in terms of patents per capita, the US lags behind many European countries. It is only 12th. Behind (in order) Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Denmark, The Netherlands, Austria, Korea, Israel, and Belgium. Also in terms of patents per capita for *cities*, San Diego is the most 'innovative' city in the US; and 2nd in the world with 8.95 patents granted per 10,000 inhabitants. It doesn't even come close to the Dutch city of Eindhoven though, with 22.58 patents granted per 10,000 inhabitants.

Major internet hubs - Google, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Wikipedia, Amazon, Twitter, Netflix- All started in US

It's interesting how American economists (and some others) like to refer to some of these as 'innovative', simply because they made a lot of money. Most of these did not actually do anything new (and thus innovative). Videosharing sites already existed before Youtube. Social media sites with the exact same format as facebook already existed. And Instagram is just a photofilter designed to make your things look *old*; something that was already easily possible before they came along and randomly got popular. This isn't *innovation*, it's the exact opposite. Google of course also just did something that others have done before them, but at least they've leveraged their success into actually innovating elsewhere (which we certainly can't say about facebook).

Amazon, Wikipedia, and Netflix were genuinely innovative when they were launched. I'd put twitter on the list too, but it's really hard to include it since it's utility is questionable at best.

Major tech innovation - Apple iphones, virtual reality (Valve, Oculus), augmented reality (Microsoft hololens, Magic Leap), self driving car tech (google, uber), electric cars (tesla), microprocessor design breakthroughs (IBM, Intel) video card breakthroughs (Nvidia, Radeon), CGI and computer animation breakthroughs - various hollywood studios, Pixar, DreamWorks, etc. Although there is definitely some Asian company and, to a lesser extent, EU based company involvement in various new computer tech breakthroughs, it is heavily skewed toward US companies.

Again you list a bunch of things that just aren't innovative.

• Iphones are not particularly innovative; the iphone didn't do anything that hadn't already been done before. Making something that's more popular than previous products isn't innovative.
  
• Virtual reality? Really? Neither Valve nor Oculus invented virtual reality, or virtual reality headsets. Also, Valve isn't actually the one making their headset, HTC is which is a Taiwanese company... it's even called the HTC Vive and not the Valve Vive. And you left out Sony as one of the three main contenders for this round of the Virtual Reality headset wars.
  
• Augmented reality? Again, really? Microsoft did not invent this; and while the promos MS puts out look really impressive, actual hands on demos tend to leave people unimpressed due to the severe technical limitations of the hololens. Magic Leap hasn't even really shown anything substantial. In both cases though, it's been done before.
  
• Self driving cars. Again, really? Not invented by either google or uber. Self driving cars have been around for decades. We've had pretty much all cargo at the port of Rotterdam ferried around by autonomous self-driving vehicles since the 90's, for example. One should also point out that the EU is years ahead of the US in rolling out transport systems for driverless cars, with the Netherlands, Germany and Spain already testing it on the open road and others in the advanced planning stages; whereas the US hasn't even begun to talk about it seriously.
  
• Electric cars: again, not a tesla invention. In fact, electric cars are nothing new. The first two electric cars in history were both European. They're so old that the 20th century hadn't even begun yet. The first practical electrical car was built by Thomas Parker in the UK in 1884. The 2nd one was the German Flocken Elektrowagen in 1888. Furthermore, electric cars were actually hugely popular until the 1930's or so when improvements in the combustion engine made electrical cars less practical in comparison. There have been numerous electrical cars developed by manufacturers since. Tesla was indeed the first to produce a modern long-range production BEV, but it isn't leading the charge in developing and bringing them to mass market; that would be Renault-Nissan.
  
• Microprocesser design breakthroughs. Sure IBM and Intel, accomplished a great deal. However, a number of very important microprocessor breakthroughs were European; such as ARM architecture and flexible organic microprocessors which are set to allow for some pretty cool things. It is the European ARM holdings, not IBM or Intel, who are the world's leading microprocessor designer; its designs are found *everywhere* and in some fields they have an overwhelming market dominance. 60% of the world's population touches at least one device a day with an ARM chip in it. Given that the overwhelming majority of the world's microprocessors are ARM chips... this one has to go to Europe.
  
• Videocards. At least get your terms straight. Radeon isn't a company; it's a lineup of cards produced by AMD who bought out the Canadian ATI who first designed and built them.
  
• CGI/Computer animation breakthroughs: sure, this naturally goes to the US. Thanks to the position of Hollywood.
  

Another thing to try: take a look at the worlds 500 most valuable publically traded companies:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1fda5...#axzz3hzybtVFH

How many are US based that didn't exist 20 years ago? How about EU based? I see several towards the top from the US, none from the EU.

How many are US based in general? How about EU based. The only real strong innovation based companies I see towards the top of the list that are EU based are in the pharmaceutical sector.

It's really odd how you think that when talking about innovative companies you should look at the most valuable companies as some sort of metric. You will never see where the innovation and key players are by doing that. For instance, the Dutch ASML holdings is involved in the production 67% of all microprocessor built in the world. Without its innovation in photolitography, Moore's Law would have fallen by the wayside decades ago. But if you only look at the most valuable companies in the world, you would never know this. Looking at market value is a horrible metric for determining innovation.

 

[arkirk]

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.

 

[Axulus]

Patents do not equate innovation. That said, in terms of patents per capita, the US lags behind many European countries. It is only 12th. Behind (in order) Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Denmark, The Netherlands, Austria, Korea, Israel, and Belgium. Also in terms of patents per capita for *cities*, San Diego is the most 'innovative' city in the US; and 2nd in the world with 8.95 patents granted per 10,000 inhabitants. It doesn't even come close to the Dutch city of Eindhoven though, with 22.58 patents granted per 10,000 inhabitants.

Major internet hubs - Google, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Wikipedia, Amazon, Twitter, Netflix- All started in US

It's interesting how American economists (and some others) like to refer to some of these as 'innovative', simply because they made a lot of money. Most of these did not actually do anything new (and thus innovative). Videosharing sites already existed before Youtube. Social media sites with the exact same format as facebook already existed. And Instagram is just a photofilter designed to make your things look *old*; something that was already easily possible before they came along and randomly got popular. This isn't *innovation*, it's the exact opposite. Google of course also just did something that others have done before them, but at least they've leveraged their success into actually innovating elsewhere (which we certainly can't say about facebook).

Amazon, Wikipedia, and Netflix were genuinely innovative when they were launched. I'd put twitter on the list too, but it's really hard to include it since it's utility is questionable at best.

Major tech innovation - Apple iphones, virtual reality (Valve, Oculus), augmented reality (Microsoft hololens, Magic Leap), self driving car tech (google, uber), electric cars (tesla), microprocessor design breakthroughs (IBM, Intel) video card breakthroughs (Nvidia, Radeon), CGI and computer animation breakthroughs - various hollywood studios, Pixar, DreamWorks, etc. Although there is definitely some Asian company and, to a lesser extent, EU based company involvement in various new computer tech breakthroughs, it is heavily skewed toward US companies.

Again you list a bunch of things that just aren't innovative.

• Iphones are not particularly innovative; the iphone didn't do anything that hadn't already been done before. Making something that's more popular than previous products isn't innovative.
  
• Virtual reality? Really? Neither Valve nor Oculus invented virtual reality, or virtual reality headsets. Also, Valve isn't actually the one making their headset, HTC is which is a Taiwanese company... it's even called the HTC Vive and not the Valve Vive. And you left out Sony as one of the three main contenders for this round of the Virtual Reality headset wars.
  
• Augmented reality? Again, really? Microsoft did not invent this; and while the promos MS puts out look really impressive, actual hands on demos tend to leave people unimpressed due to the severe technical limitations of the hololens. Magic Leap hasn't even really shown anything substantial. In both cases though, it's been done before.
  
• Self driving cars. Again, really? Not invented by either google or uber. Self driving cars have been around for decades. We've had pretty much all cargo at the port of Rotterdam ferried around by autonomous self-driving vehicles since the 90's, for example. One should also point out that the EU is years ahead of the US in rolling out transport systems for driverless cars, with the Netherlands, Germany and Spain already testing it on the open road and others in the advanced planning stages; whereas the US hasn't even begun to talk about it seriously.
  
• Electric cars: again, not a tesla invention. In fact, electric cars are nothing new. The first two electric cars in history were both European. They're so old that the 20th century hadn't even begun yet. The first practical electrical car was built by Thomas Parker in the UK in 1884. The 2nd one was the German Flocken Elektrowagen in 1888. Furthermore, electric cars were actually hugely popular until the 1930's or so when improvements in the combustion engine made electrical cars less practical in comparison. There have been numerous electrical cars developed by manufacturers since. Tesla was indeed the first to produce a modern long-range production BEV, but it isn't leading the charge in developing and bringing them to mass market; that would be Renault-Nissan.
  
• Microprocesser design breakthroughs. Sure IBM and Intel, accomplished a great deal. However, a number of very important microprocessor breakthroughs were European; such as ARM architecture and flexible organic microprocessors which are set to allow for some pretty cool things. It is the European ARM holdings, not IBM or Intel, who are the world's leading microprocessor designer; its designs are found *everywhere* and in some fields they have an overwhelming market dominance. 60% of the world's population touches at least one device a day with an ARM chip in it. Given that the overwhelming majority of the world's microprocessors are ARM chips... this one has to go to Europe.
  
• Videocards. At least get your terms straight. Radeon isn't a company; it's a lineup of cards produced by AMD who bought out the Canadian ATI who first designed and built them.
  
• CGI/Computer animation breakthroughs: sure, this naturally goes to the US. Thanks to the position of Hollywood.
  

Another thing to try: take a look at the worlds 500 most valuable publically traded companies:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1fda5...#axzz3hzybtVFH

How many are US based that didn't exist 20 years ago? How about EU based? I see several towards the top from the US, none from the EU.

How many are US based in general? How about EU based. The only real strong innovation based companies I see towards the top of the list that are EU based are in the pharmaceutical sector.

It's really odd how you think that when talking about innovative companies you should look at the most valuable companies as some sort of metric. You will never see where the innovation and key players are by doing that. For instance, the Dutch ASML holdings is involved in the production 67% of all microprocessor built in the world. Without its innovation in photolitography, Moore's Law would have fallen by the wayside decades ago. But if you only look at the most valuable companies in the world, you would never know this. Looking at market value is a horrible metric for determining innovation.

You are using some random criteria for what is "innovative" - whatever you think has the best technical merits according to your own opinion.

The companies I mention are the ones that actually impacted the world to the greatest extent - they are the ones that people themselves choose to utilize and therefore they serve a far greater number of people. These companies made it practical and desirable for everyday people - doing so requires a large dose of innovation.

I'm sure Linux operating system for the PC has or has had all sorts of technical merits over Microsoft Windows. One of these impacted the world to a great degree, the other has been relegated to the world of tech geeks.

What is the benefit of innovation if there is no one there to utilize it?

I'm not discounting the European company contributions you do mention that have had such large impacts, but they aren't as numerous as those from US based companies.

And, finally, money talks. The US dominates venture capital dollars and makes up a significant portion of R&D spending, surpassing all of Europe combined. When people across the globe look to invest their dollars in innovation, the US is their first choice, followed by Asia, with Europe a distant third.

 

[Axulus]

US (and Canadian, I'll throw them a bone as they played a notable role) energy innovation has resulted in this very interesting scenario:

 

[Juma]

Patents do not equate innovation. That said, in terms of patents per capita, the US lags behind many European countries. It is only 12th. Behind (in order) Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Denmark, The Netherlands, Austria, Korea, Israel, and Belgium. Also in terms of patents per capita for *cities*, San Diego is the most 'innovative' city in the US; and 2nd in the world with 8.95 patents granted per 10,000 inhabitants. It doesn't even come close to the Dutch city of Eindhoven though, with 22.58 patents granted per 10,000 inhabitants.



It's interesting how American economists (and some others) like to refer to some of these as 'innovative', simply because they made a lot of money. Most of these did not actually do anything new (and thus innovative). Videosharing sites already existed before Youtube. Social media sites with the exact same format as facebook already existed. And Instagram is just a photofilter designed to make your things look *old*; something that was already easily possible before they came along and randomly got popular. This isn't *innovation*, it's the exact opposite. Google of course also just did something that others have done before them, but at least they've leveraged their success into actually innovating elsewhere (which we certainly can't say about facebook).

Amazon, Wikipedia, and Netflix were genuinely innovative when they were launched. I'd put twitter on the list too, but it's really hard to include it since it's utility is questionable at best.

Major tech innovation - Apple iphones, virtual reality (Valve, Oculus), augmented reality (Microsoft hololens, Magic Leap), self driving car tech (google, uber), electric cars (tesla), microprocessor design breakthroughs (IBM, Intel) video card breakthroughs (Nvidia, Radeon), CGI and computer animation breakthroughs - various hollywood studios, Pixar, DreamWorks, etc. Although there is definitely some Asian company and, to a lesser extent, EU based company involvement in various new computer tech breakthroughs, it is heavily skewed toward US companies.

Again you list a bunch of things that just aren't innovative.

• Iphones are not particularly innovative; the iphone didn't do anything that hadn't already been done before. Making something that's more popular than previous products isn't innovative.
  
• Virtual reality? Really? Neither Valve nor Oculus invented virtual reality, or virtual reality headsets. Also, Valve isn't actually the one making their headset, HTC is which is a Taiwanese company... it's even called the HTC Vive and not the Valve Vive. And you left out Sony as one of the three main contenders for this round of the Virtual Reality headset wars.
  
• Augmented reality? Again, really? Microsoft did not invent this; and while the promos MS puts out look really impressive, actual hands on demos tend to leave people unimpressed due to the severe technical limitations of the hololens. Magic Leap hasn't even really shown anything substantial. In both cases though, it's been done before.
  
• Self driving cars. Again, really? Not invented by either google or uber. Self driving cars have been around for decades. We've had pretty much all cargo at the port of Rotterdam ferried around by autonomous self-driving vehicles since the 90's, for example. One should also point out that the EU is years ahead of the US in rolling out transport systems for driverless cars, with the Netherlands, Germany and Spain already testing it on the open road and others in the advanced planning stages; whereas the US hasn't even begun to talk about it seriously.
  
• Electric cars: again, not a tesla invention. In fact, electric cars are nothing new. The first two electric cars in history were both European. They're so old that the 20th century hadn't even begun yet. The first practical electrical car was built by Thomas Parker in the UK in 1884. The 2nd one was the German Flocken Elektrowagen in 1888. Furthermore, electric cars were actually hugely popular until the 1930's or so when improvements in the combustion engine made electrical cars less practical in comparison. There have been numerous electrical cars developed by manufacturers since. Tesla was indeed the first to produce a modern long-range production BEV, but it isn't leading the charge in developing and bringing them to mass market; that would be Renault-Nissan.
  
• Microprocesser design breakthroughs. Sure IBM and Intel, accomplished a great deal. However, a number of very important microprocessor breakthroughs were European; such as ARM architecture and flexible organic microprocessors which are set to allow for some pretty cool things. It is the European ARM holdings, not IBM or Intel, who are the world's leading microprocessor designer; its designs are found *everywhere* and in some fields they have an overwhelming market dominance. 60% of the world's population touches at least one device a day with an ARM chip in it. Given that the overwhelming majority of the world's microprocessors are ARM chips... this one has to go to Europe.
  
• Videocards. At least get your terms straight. Radeon isn't a company; it's a lineup of cards produced by AMD who bought out the Canadian ATI who first designed and built them.
  
• CGI/Computer animation breakthroughs: sure, this naturally goes to the US. Thanks to the position of Hollywood.
  

Another thing to try: take a look at the worlds 500 most valuable publically traded companies:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1fda5...#axzz3hzybtVFH

How many are US based that didn't exist 20 years ago? How about EU based? I see several towards the top from the US, none from the EU.

How many are US based in general? How about EU based. The only real strong innovation based companies I see towards the top of the list that are EU based are in the pharmaceutical sector.

It's really odd how you think that when talking about innovative companies you should look at the most valuable companies as some sort of metric. You will never see where the innovation and key players are by doing that. For instance, the Dutch ASML holdings is involved in the production 67% of all microprocessor built in the world. Without its innovation in photolitography, Moore's Law would have fallen by the wayside decades ago. But if you only look at the most valuable companies in the world, you would never know this. Looking at market value is a horrible metric for determining innovation.

You are using some random criteria for what is "innovative" - whatever you think has the best technical merits according to your own opinion.

The companies I mention are the ones that actually impacted the world to the greatest extent - they are the ones that people themselves choose to utilize and therefore they serve a far greater number of people. These companies made it practical and desirable for everyday people - doing so requires a large dose of innovation.

I'm sure Linux operating system for the PC has or has had all sorts of technical merits over Microsoft Windows. One of these impacted the world to a great degree, the other has been relegated to the world of tech geeks.

What is the benefit of innovation if there is no one there to utilize it?

I'm not discounting the European company contributions you do mention that have had such large impacts, but they aren't as numerous as those from US based companies.

And, finally, money talks. The US dominates venture capital dollars and makes up a significant portion of R&D spending, surpassing all of Europe combined. When people across the globe look to invest their dollars in innovation, the US is their first choice, followed by Asia, with Europe a distant third.

But then you are not talking about innovators but entrepreneus.

 

[NobleSavage]

Hmm, but the US is the number one originator of patents in the EU.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/06/us-no-1-in-patent-filings-at-the-european-patent-office/id=48404/

So?

That doesn't tell you anything other than that the US is bigger than any EU member state.

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 figure patents in general are a very poor metric. Lot's of bullshit patents are filled.

 

[NobleSavage]

You are using some random criteria for what is "innovative" - whatever you think has the best technical merits according to your own opinion.

The companies I mention are the ones that actually impacted the world to the greatest extent - they are the ones that people themselves choose to utilize and therefore they serve a far greater number of people. These companies made it practical and desirable for everyday people - doing so requires a large dose of innovation.

I'm sure Linux operating system for the PC has or has had all sorts of technical merits over Microsoft Windows. One of these impacted the world to a great degree, the other has been relegated to the world of tech geeks.

What is the benefit of innovation if there is no one there to utilize it?

I'm not discounting the European company contributions you do mention that have had such large impacts, but they aren't as numerous as those from US based companies.

And, finally, money talks. The US dominates venture capital dollars and makes up a significant portion of R&D spending, surpassing all of Europe combined. When people across the globe look to invest their dollars in innovation, the US is their first choice, followed by Asia, with Europe a distant third.

On Linux: the kernel was started by Linus Torvalds in Finland, however it was just the kernel. All the other bits were from the Free Software Foundation in the US. Linus moved to the US and the Linux Foundation is in the US. One of the first and biggest companies providing Linux for businesses is Red Hat -- a US company. The design was based on Unix type operating systems that had it's roots Bell Labs.

It HAS dramatically affected the world. It's run on the most super computers. It's run as Android on more phones that iPhone. Most of the leading tech companies use Linux as the foundation for their technology. Google used it... it's everywhere and in everything: It runs the servers that do all the trades for Wall Street; most consumer friendly routers for home and small offices run Linux; the military uses it in weapons and missiles; probably about 70% of web hosting; the bullet trains in Japan use it; and I'm sure it's run on millions of things I've never even thought of.

 

[Axulus]

You are using some random criteria for what is "innovative" - whatever you think has the best technical merits according to your own opinion.

The companies I mention are the ones that actually impacted the world to the greatest extent - they are the ones that people themselves choose to utilize and therefore they serve a far greater number of people. These companies made it practical and desirable for everyday people - doing so requires a large dose of innovation.

I'm sure Linux operating system for the PC has or has had all sorts of technical merits over Microsoft Windows. One of these impacted the world to a great degree, the other has been relegated to the world of tech geeks.

What is the benefit of innovation if there is no one there to utilize it?

I'm not discounting the European company contributions you do mention that have had such large impacts, but they aren't as numerous as those from US based companies.

And, finally, money talks. The US dominates venture capital dollars and makes up a significant portion of R&D spending, surpassing all of Europe combined. When people across the globe look to invest their dollars in innovation, the US is their first choice, followed by Asia, with Europe a distant third.

On Linux: the kernel was started by Linus Torvalds in Finland, however it was just the kernel. All the other bits were from the Free Software Foundation in the US. Linus moved to the US and the Linux Foundation is in the US. One of the first and biggest companies providing Linux for businesses is Red Hat -- a US company. The design was based on Unix type operating systems that had it's roots Bell Labs.

It HAS dramatically affected the world. It's run on the most super computers. It's run as Android on more phones that iPhone. Most of the leading tech companies use Linux as the foundation for their technology. Google used it... it's everywhere and in everything: It runs the servers that do all the trades for Wall Street; most consumer friendly routers for home and small offices run Linux; the military uses it in weapons and missiles; probably about 70% of web hosting; the bullet trains in Japan use it; and I'm sure it's run on millions of things I've never even thought of.

That's why I specified "operating system for the PC", but point taken.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I'd guess the US leads in the development of commercial applications - though the innovativeness and utility of much of it is questionable. I doubt there's any clear leader in the 'blue sky' scientific bit underpinning it. The white coat crowd are rarely in it for the money and typically pool knowledge internationally anyway.

 

[dystopian]

You are using some random criteria for what is "innovative" - whatever you think has the best technical merits according to your own opinion.

The companies I mention are the ones that actually impacted the world to the greatest extent - they are the ones that people themselves choose to utilize and therefore they serve a far greater number of people. These companies made it practical and desirable for everyday people - doing so requires a large dose of innovation.

No, I'm not using a random criteria for what innovative is, you are. I'm actually using the *definition* of the word: to introduce something new (for the first time) or to do something in a fundamentally new manner.

Whether or not something has an impact on the world has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not its innovative. If I invent a technology that has never before been seen in any shape or form... then that's innovation; but it might be so far ahead of its time that it just doesn't catch on. Or maybe I just suck at marketing. If 10 years from my invention onward, someone else does essentially the exact same thing, they might be better at marketing than me or they might just have to picked the right time to bring it to market. It could catch on like a wildfire and the tech might end up having a bigger impact than anything seen before. I would *still* be the one responsible for the innovation, and not whoever copied it and got succesful with it.

I'm sure Linux operating system for the PC has or has had all sorts of technical merits over Microsoft Windows. One of these impacted the world to a great degree, the other has been relegated to the world of tech geeks.

Demonstrating you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Sure, windows is the dominant OS for home computers. Linux, on the other hand, is the dominant OS for servers, mainframes, and supercomputers; the first one in that list being a pretty hugely important group for the home user, without which you would not be able to sound ignorant to me right now. Linux, by virtue of being the basis for Android, also dominates smartphones and tablets.

What is the benefit of innovation if there is no one there to utilize it?

So did you just completely ignore everything I said about ARM (for example)? That fancy iphone of yours works only because of a European chipdesign, built using European machines.

I'm not discounting the European company contributions you do mention that have had such large impacts, but they aren't as numerous as those from US based companies.

Which you base on nothing more than sticking a wet finger in the air and pretending you know which way the weather is going to blow. You've already demonstrated that you have a very limited understanding of the ways in which various technologies impact the world, so why we should take you seriously at all on this topic?

And, finally, money talks. The US dominates venture capital dollars and makes up a significant portion of R&D spending, surpassing all of Europe combined. When people across the globe look to invest their dollars in innovation, the US is their first choice, followed by Asia, with Europe a distant third.

This is meaningless without a breakdown of how that R&D money is actually invested.

 

[lpetrich]

The companies I mention are the ones that actually impacted the world to the greatest extent - they are the ones that people themselves choose to utilize and therefore they serve a far greater number of people. These companies made it practical and desirable for everyday people - doing so requires a large dose of innovation.

Prove it. Yes, prove it. The ability to make business deals != innovation.

I'm sure Linux operating system for the PC has or has had all sorts of technical merits over Microsoft Windows. One of these impacted the world to a great degree, the other has been relegated to the world of tech geeks.

Axulus, you have a LOT to learn. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in chest-thumping "patriotism" and business-leader worship. Linux hasn't been very successful on the desktop, but it's a widely-used OS in servers and smartphones and other such things -- stuff that's behind the scenes.

M$ got to where it was by a combination of historical accidents, exploitation of others' mistakes, platform inertia, and devious business tactics. It's NOT a very innovative company.


Also, the success of Linux and Wikipedia ought to be embarrassing to the capitalism groupies here. Linux and Wikipedia don't make some small elite very rich, so therefore they are socialist, and therefore evil.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Something you have to be careful of here..

Say you have various entities working on scientific and technical problems. They pool knowledge and get peers to try and reproduce or falsify potential breakthroughs coz that's how the science works. Within that, there's a commercial sector with accesss to all this but which keeps any breakthrough secret while it's commercially sensitive. If everyone's equally innovative, it'll look like innovation is concentrated in the commercial sector (and wherever the commercial sector is concentrated) with the rest somewhat dependent on it, but, really, it's the other way round.