Qualcomm held an event in Washington, D.C. this week to voice concerns about the creation, control and protection of intellectual property – and in particular the rise of China as a tech giant that could displace U.S. leadership.
introduction Susan K. Schwaba trade negotiator at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, spoke of a troubling future in which trade is weaponized and control of global markets is the goal.
Followed her Paul Michelformer federal judge specializing in intellectual property protection, John J. HamreChairman of American Leadership at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Katherine McFarlandChairman of the Army Research and Development Board of the National Academy of Sciences Ellen Lord, former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Supply, and Robert AtkinsonPresident of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Essentially, the panelists argued that the cost-driven procurement process in the United States is severely broken. It cooperates poorly with other, more strategic functions of government, and its excessive focus on cost has severely and unnecessarily limited American innovation, especially in advanced defense projects.
Let’s talk about Qualcomm’s efforts to focus government attention on protecting U.S. tech leadership, and the companies that provide that leadership.
China prioritizes standards and startup innovation
The panelists said China is heavily funding its efforts to secure technological leadership and control of standards bodies, sending hundreds of people to standards body meetings to dominate those efforts.
China is also aggressively funding development efforts and doesn’t seem to care whether the companies they fund become profitable. As long as these companies show progress, they have a reserve of money and resources they can use to continue operating.
This is in stark contrast to the US, where only the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is given almost carte blanche and is not punished for mistakes. One of the agency’s biggest initiatives at several major U.S. companies allows for innovation without penalizing executives if they aim for the stars and miss.
This ability to take reasonable risks is one of the advantages companies have that the US government, with the exception of DARPA, does not have. If you screw up elsewhere, politicians will punish you, resulting in less risk. Because risk taking stimulates innovation, the rate of strong innovation may be reduced.
One of the big differences is that when it comes to antitrust issues, China is more circumspect and appears more surgical in its approach, while the US often takes more draconian approaches. For example, when the United States disbanded Standard Oil, control of world oil production relinquished control of the United States. When they crippled RCA, Japan gained dominance in the consumer electronics industry. And when they broke up AT&T, many of the beneficiaries ended up being companies like China’s Huawei.
The Commission argued that antitrust efforts should focus on preserving any market advantages the U.S. has, rather than on harming U.S. companies if such moves would shift related revenues overseas.
Also read: The latest 5G advancements include satellite support, P2P connectivity, and long battery life.
Government should be allowed to make profits
The panel did not like the way defense projects were financed and managed. The panelists argued that the people running the tenders were so focused on depriving companies of profits that firms had no incentive to look for better ways of doing things or even to use more advanced technologies, which would be much better when the protection system was in place. put into production.
They argued that the process made sense when the government funded R&D, but now companies tend to fund those efforts. If huge risks do not otherwise yield financial rewards, companies will become overly conservative and new companies will be discouraged from entering the segment. For consumers, this means we pay more for solutions that become obsolete as soon as they are released, rather than to stay one step ahead.
While the panelists advocated for more business people, I think it would be problematic if they didn’t have a critical mass of people trained in both business and government to ensure that business people don’t get burned out in government processes and political dynamics. But according to panelists, businesspeople have no financial incentive to study government processes, making it very difficult to train people for these positions. As a result, there are virtually no people in government today who are good at both roles.
US competitiveness is on the line
While the event was sponsored by Qualcomm and clearly supported by Qualcomm’s powerful and well-run licensing division, there was virtually no Qualcomm content. The entire event was focused on making the US a better place to innovate, with a particular focus on military innovation so the US can be ready for the next war, which is especially prescient given what’s happening with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (and tangential cybersecurity). risks too).
The keynote speaker and other panelists made a strong case that not only is the US government failing to support innovation in the US aggressively enough, but it is taking steps that appear to be forcing innovation to follow oil and consumer electronics elsewhere countries, especially China.
The most important point was that policymakers and government organizations (DARPA being the notable exception) cannot focus enough on US success, and this needs to change before China looks at the US in the rearview mirror regarding technology in general. and defense in particular.
More about business in technology:
