While those patents are not enforceable in China (unless equivalents were also filed in China -- unsure if they would be worth much) they would be when imported to the US. This is one of the reasons the ITC exists, and it played a prominent role during the smartphone patent wars. So at least the US market would be protected from knock-offs.
The smartphone wars were fought among tech giants, not capital intensive hardware startups. The problem with patents is that you need to already be financially successful enough to file them, able to pay to protect them in court, and can float your company's operating costs long enough to see them enforced and rewarded, which may take years.
Yes and no -- filing patents is quite affordable (probably outdated info, but I recall average costs for drafting and filing was ~10K / patent, most of the costs being related to the drafting rather than filing.) Compared to all the other capital investments required for hardware startups, these costs are negligible.
But you're totally right that enforcing them is extremely expensive, slow and risky.
That said, Roomba isn't exactly a startup but wasn't a tech giant either, and did enforce their patents often.
And especially against imported infringing products, the ITC provides a much cheaper, faster mechanism to get protection via injunctions.
That's why the ITC is so relevant here: it is relatively quite speedy compared to regular patent trials, and have the power to issue injunctions against imports (which is partly why it was relied on a lot during the smartphone patent wars.) So you may not collect damages from Chinese companies, but you can completely block their infringing imports into the US and deny them US revenue.
Coasting on their patents is exactly why iRobot went bankrupt. If they had a proper incentive to continue innovating, they might be around today. Instead, the patent system incentivized them to erect a tollgate and snooze away in the booth next to it.
>> US companies can’t beat Chinese companies completely subsidized by their national government.
> Except our companies do just that, all the time. Who is the Chinese Intel? The Chinese Microsoft? The Chinese Boeing? The Chinese NVIDIA?
Where are the new ones?
Also Intel is not doing well, and the Chinese (after a fashion) Intel is TSMC, who also does NVIDIA's manufacturing.
> People forget that the US is still the #2 manufacturer in the world, and that's (apparently) without halfway trying.
So? That fact sounds like pablum. I think the real story of US manufacturing has been one of erosion of capabilities and long-term loss of strength. The US may still have a high ranking, but I'd bet: 1) much of that of that is low-volume and legacy, 2) second-place is still only 60% of what China does.
> People forget that the US is still the #2 manufacturer in the world
Manufacturer of what, exactly, though?
What do you export? What do you sell?
Food? Nope, illegal in most of the world.
Cars? Nope, uncompetitive in most of the world. "High end" American cars lack even basic features fitted to poverty-spec cars in the EU, like heated windscreens.
Computers? I'm typing this on a computer assembled in Scotland onto a Latvian-made chassis using a Chinese-made motherboard populated with Korean memory chips and an Israeli microprocessor.
What does the US actually make and sell, any more?
Zhaoxin makes X86 and countless make ARM and RiscV chips. SMIC being a foundry.
> The Chinese Microsoft?
Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance.
>The Chinese Boeing?
Comac makes passenger and Chengdu fighter jets.
>The Chinese NVIDIA?
Huawei makes AI GPUs.
>People forget that the US is still the #2 manufacturer in the world
Considering the US never had its industry blown up in any war and could reap the benefits of 150+ years worth of stability, higher education, skilled immigration, compounding wealth, and taking over the vacuum and brains of Europe's post-war industrial powers, that's not really something THAT impressive.
>and that's (apparently) without halfway trying.
If it isn't halfway trying, why does it feel the need to sanction or ban chinese competitors?
> If you're really the first, you should be able to get about a 20 year head start.
That's an opinion, and not one I agree with.
If you and your competitor are racing to develop a thing, whoever wins by a couple months shouldn't get a monopoly for decades.
Most of the time when things get patented, it's strictly worse for innovation in that space until the patents expire. 3d printing is a great example.
It's asinine to think you can outsource manufacturing of whatever object to some other company in another country, but that no one on the planet can make the same thing because "the idea is yours".
> Most of the time when things get patented, it's strictly worse for innovation in that space until the patents expire.
What happens at expiration is an important and intended feature of patents. They trade a legally guaranteed headstart against the requirement of publishing your methods for your competitors to learn from.
