As an important part of the information industry, the global output value of the display industry reached 1 1000 billion US dollars in 2007, of which the flat panel display industry alone reached 70 billion US dollars, which is an important bridge that runs through the chain of "components, components and complete machines" in the information industry. In China, display technology and related industries occupy a very important position in the electronic information industry. According to statistics, the output value of display technology-related products in China accounts for about 45% of the total output value of the information industry. On the display terminal, China is a big exporter of MP3, a big producer, exporter and consumer of mobile phones and a big producer, exporter and consumer of color TVs. However, China's competitiveness in its key component-flat panel display device is not strong. The country has realized the importance of flat panel display industry and listed it as the core and basic position to promote the development of information industry. The Outline of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development clearly puts forward "vigorously developing core industries such as integrated circuits, software and new components". The 11th Five-Year Plan for the information industry lists the flat panel display industry, software and integrated circuit industry as key development industries. The flat panel display industry, which is the core basic industry, has become an industry that China must develop, regardless of whether we have accumulated enough patents or whether we lack core raw materials and equipment, because it belongs to an industry that has no conditions to create conditions.
To some extent, the development speed of technology also determines the process of industry. With the development of technology, the sales of flat panel display devices have exceeded the sales of CRT (cathode ray tube), and the display has entered the era of flat panel display. In the flat panel display technology, liquid crystal (LCD) and plasma (PDP) have become the leading products at present. However, organic light-emitting diode technology with natural technological advantages has entered the process of industrialization. The following introduces the intellectual property competition of LCD, PDP and organic light-emitting diode.
According to the statistics of the Ministry of Information Industry, from 1976 to July 2007, the total number of flat panel display patents applied by China, the United States, Europe and Japan was:
Due to the position of flat panel display industry as a basic industry, the industry scale is large, the industrial chain is long, the technology dependence is strong, and the patent scale is large.
Intellectual property competition in liquid crystal field
Perhaps many people are concerned about the intellectual property litigation of TFT LCD between Sharp and Samsung. Since Sharp sued Samsung for infringement of five US patents in the U.S. District Court of East Texas in August 2007, it has sued Samsung Electronics and its subsidiaries for infringement in Tokyo, Japan, Seoul, South Korea, ITC and Delaware. Not to be outdone, Samsung Electronics sued Sharp in Tokyo, Japan at the end of 2007, in addition to ITC in the United States.
But there is no such case in the field of liquid crystal. In the field of flat panel display, the LCD industry is the largest at present, and the corresponding patent litigation involves the most subjects and technologies, including Sharp, the most comprehensive and powerful company in the LCD field, and H0 Neville, Guardian and other subjects who hold a certain technology; There are not only panel manufacturers in Taiwan Province Province, China, but also end users such as BenQ and Dell. In the face of strong competition, Japanese companies have used the killer weapon of patent litigation. For example, Sharp has filed patent lawsuits against many enterprises or collected patent fees through patent licensing, including Chunghwa Picture Tube, AUO Optoelectronics, Hanyu Finance, Chi Mei and so on. The technology started by enterprises in Taiwan Province Province of China comes from Japanese technology transfer. In the process of mass production, after many lawsuits or licenses, the cost of intellectual property rights has been added to the cost structure many times. Take the panel five tigers in Taiwan Province province, China as an example. The initial technology transfer is Lianyou Optoelectronics (the predecessor of AUO Optoelectronics) and Panasonic, AUO Technology (another predecessor of AUO Optoelectronics) and Japanese IBM, Chunghwa CRT and mitsubishi electric, Hanyu Caijing and Toshiba, Glory Electronics and Sharp. However, in the process of industrialization, they were sued by Sharp, Honeywell, Guardian, Panasonic, Thomson and LG respectively. Among them, AUO and Chimei have become very active in seeking licenses to expand the free space of technology use and reduce the impact of patentees on their customers, and have obtained licenses from Samsung, Thomson, IBM, Fujitsu, Hitachi and other companies.
Intellectual property rights should be born from competition and must accompany the whole process of competition. Huge investment and saturated production capacity indicate fierce competition, and the competition of intellectual property rights is often a starting point of competition. In the field of LCD, the competition of intellectual property rights will be more intense in the future.
Intellectual property competition of plasma
The top five companies that can produce PDP screens in the world are Fujitsu (which later transferred its assets to Hitachi), Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung and LG, among which Fujitsu has accumulated the most powerful patents. Between Korean and Japanese companies, Samsung was sued by Fujitsu, Panasonic and Pioneer respectively, while LG was sued by Panasonic and is negotiating with Fujitsu. Japanese companies have licenses with each other. After nearly four years of litigation and negotiation, several large companies may realize the first round of patent peace period. In the future, due to technological development and market changes, a new competitive pattern will emerge, and patent litigation may happen again. Domestic Changhong imported PDP production line from Orion and its intellectual property rights. Orion once claimed to have 12 PDP core patents, and the value of these 12 patents may determine Changhong's initial intellectual property competitiveness.
Intellectual property competition in the field of organic light-emitting diodes
The scale of patent competition is often related to the scale of industry. Organic light-emitting diodes are still in the early stage of industrialization, and patent litigation has begun to take shape. In addition to Kodak's extensive patent authorization to 2 1 companies around the world, patent lawsuits broke out in Lai Bao and Youjing in 2005. Although the fierce patent litigation war of organic light-emitting diodes has not yet appeared, based on the optimistic development momentum of the organic light-emitting diode industry, the competition for intellectual property layout has been fierce. It can be said that the current stage is in the strategic opportunity period of organic light-emitting diode R&D and patent layout. This can be seen from Korean companies scrambling to lay out AMOLED (Active Organic Light Emitting Device). According to the statistics of Korea Intellectual Property Office, as of 1999, there are only 19 patent applications in Korea; In 2000, the number of applications rose sharply to 30; 74 pieces of 200 1; 177 in 2002: 239 and 562 in 2003 and 2004 respectively; In 2005, the number was 455. Among the above-mentioned 1556 patent applications for AMOLED, Koreans submitted 1280 (accounting for 82.3%), LG Philips Liquid Crystal Company (279 applications), LG Electronics Company (1.57 applications) and Samsung Electronics Company (1.37
We must attach importance to independent innovation, but don't talk about independent intellectual property rights
The Central Committee of the Communist Party of China comprehensively analyzed the general trend of world development and the historical stage of China, and put forward a major strategy of strengthening independent innovation and building an innovative country. Faced with the guidance of the central government, many enterprises began to pay attention to results, and some advanced domestic enterprises began to learn to compete by using the rules of the game of intellectual property rights. On the other hand, many industries or enterprises claim to have independent intellectual property rights. The author is in the front line of intellectual property competition in the tablet industry and has personally experienced intellectual property competition in some industries. I often think about this question: Are there any industries or enterprises that really have independent intellectual property rights? Take the flat panel display industry as an example. I haven't seen any enterprises that really have completely independent intellectual property rights. A product covers many technical links and is covered by thousands of patents in Qian Qian. Any product has its ups and downs. Take flat panel display manufacturers as an example. There are dozens of raw materials or chips in the upstream of screen production, and many technical applications such as consumer electronics, instruments and meters in the downstream. Products in the upper, middle and lower reaches will involve the protection of intellectual property rights. It is difficult for an enterprise to achieve complete vertical integration. In addition to the patent competition from competitors who are also screen manufacturers, they are also facing patent threats in the upper, middle and lower reaches. Therefore, it is only theoretically possible for an industry or enterprise to obtain complete independent intellectual property rights. Independent intellectual property rights should be understood as a policy orientation, which embodies the country's pursuit of independent innovation and strengthening intellectual property rights. It is unrealistic to pursue complete independent intellectual property rights, and it is more realistic to pursue the comprehensive competitiveness of technology and intellectual property rights. We can see that leading technology companies such as IBM and Microsoft are sued by some small companies, which further proves that completely independent intellectual property rights cannot be realized. The concept of "free action" put forward by IBM is worth learning by domestic enterprises. Doing intellectual property rights is not for completely independent intellectual property rights, but for the unrestricted freedom of research and development, production and sales. Enterprises should accumulate patents, gain freedom of action through cross-licensing, or gain the ability of counterclaim or chips of mutual checks and balances through patents, so as to realize patent peace.
You can't rely on independent research and development, but don't forget technical cooperation.
The development model of obtaining core intellectual property rights through independent research and development is correct, and some technologies can only be obtained through independent research and development. Not only the military technology related to national security needs independent research and development, but also Japan and South Korea have a strong technical blockade on China in the field of civilian flat panel display. For example, it is difficult for China to obtain TFT technology "thin film transistor" in flat panel displays. However, an enterprise must not forget to further enhance its technological and intellectual property competitiveness through technical cooperation after it has acquired certain technical capabilities through independent research and development and chips that can be cross-licensed with other companies. It is difficult for an enterprise to obtain all the technologies needed for production through independent research and development, and it is even more difficult to bypass all patent obstacles. Enterprises can solve this problem by cross-licensing with foreign enterprises. Procter & Gamble suggested that it is difficult for them to support their business development through independent research and development. The CEO of Procter & Gamble pointed out that 50% of Procter & Gamble's innovations are obtained from outside. Their concept of "open innovation" and changing "R&D" into "connected development" is also worth learning from domestic enterprises. Obtaining the patented technology of foreign companies by cross-licensing or counterclaiming their own patents to win the settlement in litigation not only does not mean that the status of independent intellectual property rights of enterprises is reduced, but also reflects the technical ability and intellectual property strength of domestic enterprises to some extent.
Attach importance to the development of core technologies, and don't underestimate the development of small technologies such as technology and product design.
It is the dream of every enterprise to have core original patents. Enterprises involved in mass production have them, which means that they always have the magic weapon to defeat the enemy. R&D companies do, which means they have shiny money. However, the original patent is either a laboratory principle technology, or a technology that can industrialize laboratory technology, or a technology that significantly improves product performance and opens up technical direction. This kind of technology is often concentrated in the early stage of technological development and often requires long-term basic research and development. For domestic enterprises, there are two attitudes that are not desirable. One is to attach importance to basic research and development while ignoring the development of small technologies such as process technology and product design; One is to wait until the original core patent expires before intervening in the industry. In fact, technology has been developing. Some small patented technologies accumulated in the production process can also defeat the enemy, such as liquid crystal technology. The original technology should have passed the patent validity period, but patent lawsuits are frequent at this stage. Among the five patents that Sharp sued Samsung, except that 1 was filed in 1987, all the other patents were filed after 1996, generally for upgrading a product. Therefore, the LCD and PDP industries in China didn't get enough intellectual property rights because they started late. However, since we want to set foot in this industry, relevant enterprises should not forget the accumulation of patents. In any period of industrial development, patent work will make a difference. For example, BOE's wide-angle patented technology has been licensed to Hitachi. For pre-industrial technologies like organic light-emitting diodes, there will be greater opportunities, because China started not too late. China should seize the opportunity to fully popularize devices, materials, mass production technology, drivers and other technologies, and obtain more patents, so as to win international intellectual property competition.