Apparently he's up to 2455 patents now: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...%22&d=PTXT

Compared to that faker Nakamatsu with 6 patents: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...%29&d=PTXT

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/10/say-hi-to-paten/
http://www.impactlab.net/2006/02/26/top-...-yamazaki/

Not that I'm trying to take away from my philosophical emphasis on this: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...ciology%29
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e..._discovery - "The concept of multiple discovery opposes a traditional view—the "heroic theory" of invention and discovery."

But I was just superficially reading the Wikipedia list of Japanese inventions (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...inventions) as well as this site: http://www.ied.co.jp/isan/sangyo-isan/JS7-history.htm (the .pdf on the site is better formatted) and stumbled across Yamazaki's name. Randomly interesting.

This is rapidly developing into a link-posting competition between nest0r and buonaparte.

On multiple discoveries, the traditional 'heroic' view of discoverers is so misplaced. The world population used to be MUCH smaller, so people with big ideas stood out a lot more. As the population has increased, it becomes less likely that anyone with a good idea will be remembered and more likely that several people will have the same idea given the same input of information. Add to that the trend towards sharing of ideas early in the discovery stage and even multiple discoveries start to look like a boring phenomenon. For example quantum electrodynamics is hardly a multiple discovery - they were all working on it together and knew about each development the others made. We increase our knowledge at a roughly constant rate per unit population, with gradual increases occuring due to increased organisation.

[ファブリス]

TMLDR (too many links, didn't read). Sorry :p

Is that the same Japanese inventor that we talked about some months ago? The one who liked to get high under water? :p

I still have to read the link your posted on acupuncture.

I'm not sure what the big deal is with multiple discoveries. The person 'credited' with a discovery is usually the one who has done better, and more complete work on the subject anyway, so their work being credited is sort of 'justified'. This was definitely the case with Newton and Leibniz at least. And others that I have come across too but can't recall the names of.

And yes, as blabla says, Complexity grows with time. Simple as that. I don't know much about complexity theory but I know that you can basically categorise a system into various subsets, Connectedness, Density and the (dynamic) rate, at which things interact with each other all contribute to one sort of, variable, "complexity".


In anycase

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...T/1&d=PTXT

A fellow Australian wins, by far.

Also, about 300 of those patents are for essentially the same semiconductor manufacturing method, just with tiny tweaks to the process in each patent. They're just patenting every tiny piece of work they do. Same goes for his methods of manufacturing a display device. It's kind of cool in that (if you were interested) you could see exactly how the idea evolved over time. But shows that number of patents filed in someone's name doesn't give a good indication of their creative/inventive prowess.

How else are they going to attract the pockets of wealthy opportunistic entrepreneurs? =D

Blahah Wrote:This is rapidly developing into a link-posting competition between nest0r and buonaparte.

On multiple discoveries, the traditional 'heroic' view of discoverers is so misplaced. The world population used to be MUCH smaller, so people with big ideas stood out a lot more. As the population has increased, it becomes less likely that anyone with a good idea will be remembered and more likely that several people will have the same idea given the same input of information. Add to that the trend towards sharing of ideas early in the discovery stage and even multiple discoveries start to look like a boring phenomenon. For example quantum electrodynamics is hardly a multiple discovery - they were all working on it together and knew about each development the others made. We increase our knowledge at a roughly constant rate per unit population, with gradual increases occuring due to increased organisation.

Pfft, I won that competition thousands of comments ago.

I don't agree with this in terms of perception, which is why I still point out the closest conceptual kin to the kind of evolving process we have today, i.e. it's as I said, a philosophical emphasis, not that it's a striking phenomenon.

I think it's clear that people always trend towards a kind of heroic figural focus in pretty much any instance of narrativizing invention or creativity.

As you said, 'misplaced'. Yeah. And stuff.

liosama Wrote:How else are they going to attract the pockets of wealthy opportunistic entrepreneurs? =D

Yeah if I'd followed up on a reference in Yamazaki's Wikipedia entry about him being the 'second most' prolific, I'd have found that Kia Silverbrook thing.

I was actually referencing the patent vs. invention thing (despite knowing the trifling aspects of the patent quantity) because I was interested in things like 'US patents' vs. global recognition and of course how patenting and invention connect.

Hopefully there was a tone of irony to the whole idea of 'inventiveness' as a 'competition', but alas.

BTW Fabrice, yeah, that Nakamatsu person we talked about ages ago is the one with a paltry 6 patents. ;p