IBM didn't have funds??
... Dude, I would seriously recommend you to stop smoking whatever shit it is.
On a serious note, if you do not have a logical answer, please take your time and do some reading. That will help improving the quality of conversation.
There's a limit to how much IP can be used if you limit yourself to just a few fields, while conducting research even outside your market.
Apple keeps buying patents via acquisitions, but how much do you think they use?
Companies create or buy patents to keep competition out, even if they don't intend to enter those markets, either due to lack of interest, lack of competence or lack of money (relative to the RoI). I thought you would know this already.
That's not the best way, that's one of the laziest way. A better way is to consult multiple experts in each domain and take their opinion. But this is extremely hard and time consuming process. I have done this during my college days and initial years of my professional life. More than 99% of the papers published even in IEEE transactions are purely theoretical and never saw the light of the day. Based on my personal experience I can confidently extrapolate 99.99% of Chinese publications are pure crap.
An expert put it at 90%. Because 10% are marketable as per him.
China is a threat and in multiple ways. But I don't think they are the 10 feet people you are claiming. That's the difference.
They did function at a level they shouldn't be and that's coming straight out of their ego and not by logic. When you function out of your ego, you are bound to crash.
They are being underestimated in every field. Reason: Lack of people to people contact.
Even their military is opague, and even military analysts admit their predictions about China have consistently been wrong. Even Doval admitted the same back in 2017 alongside I believe Chief of Staff Mullen (?), when he said the Chinese achieved in 2012 what the US had assumed would be achieved only by 2017.
For example, as per me, they will match USN in the Western Pacific before 2027, all of the Pacific before 2032, all of the USN by 2037 and by 2050, they will be twice as big. But as per most experts, they will match the USN only by 2050. Absolutely ridiculous, one only has to look at their production capacity to get a clue.
Regarding, semiconductor production in India, now I strongly suggest to start production in India. But we still can't be independent in next 15-20 years to nullify the impact of sanctions. Unless we create replacement of ASML we are doomed. So we need to keep our head down and operate till we are completely independent. China is paying the price for punching above it's weight.
We don't need independence at the top end, at least in Si. The Si race has been lost before we even began. The next step is gallium, boron, graphene, nanomagnets, quantum etc. Our need for Si is only in the other 70% of industrial applications that will use 14, 22, and 28nm processes over the next 15 years.
I'm not hung up on semiconductors, it's a critical domain without which the world seizes to function. Regarding new technologies, let me give an example. I have been reading about quantum computing since 2000. After 20 years and tens of billions of dollars spent in research, have you seen any mainstream products so far?
Forget about any new technologies. Even in Silicon, any significant change takes more than 10 years from proven concept ( not research paper) to commercialization.
You are hung up on semiconductors of today. The paper talks of the future.
The claim "China is ahead in 37 sectors" based on number of "CHINESE PATENTS" and " CHINESE RESEARCH PAPERS" is deeply flawed and needs more substance.
The paper is using current information to predict future events. If we actually wait for more substance, ie, wait for the Chinese to actually take real world lead, then that basically means the Chinese have taken a lead and we are too late.
The point of the paper was to bring to notice the seriousness of the issue. There are students and researchers in China who are publishing papers, it means they are already competing at a pretty high level within their system. As competition intensifies, the quality will increase too.
However:
science.thewire.in
In 2022, Chinese papers outnumbered US papers by a 2-to-1 ratio in the top 1% most cited artificial intelligence research. Similar patterns can be seen with China leading in the top 1% most cited papers in nanoscience, chemistry and transportation.
So there you go, it's actually a real problem.
One of the dumb requirements some Chinese universities had was their PhD candidates needed to get published in an international journal to graduate. They changed the rule in 2020.
indianexpress.com
