SOME ASPECTS OF DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF “NEW TECHNOLOGY”

A. V. ANDREEV

The Party and the government constantly devote enormous attention to improving socialist production on the basis of the latest technology.

The Directives of the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU emphasize that the further development of the economy and the raising of the people’s well-being in the new five-year plan will be carried out on the basis of the all-round use of the achievements of science and technology, the industrial development of all social production, and the increase of its efficiency and labor productivity. Therefore, the maximum acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the raising of the technical level of production, and the introduction of new technology and highly efficient technological processes into production are the principal tasks set by the congress for the current five-year plan.

At the present time, the movement for technical progress has assumed a truly nationwide character in our country. On the basis of scientific achievements, new economical technological processes, high-productivity machines, and mechanisms are being developed. Unfortunately, quite often obsolete machine tools and equipment are created and produced under the guise of new technology; moreover, people receive bonuses for the creation and introduction of such “innovations” into production. Therefore, the interests of properly providing material incentives for technical progress require a unified understanding of new technology.

Taking into account the known limitation of capital investments, we cannot introduce into production everything that scientific and technical thought creates. Hence there arises the necessity of selecting only the best examples from the technology that is being created. But in order to single out the best technology from the stream of technical creativity, one must know the requirements imposed upon it.

In this connection, the development of a number of methodological and practical questions acquires great importance. The very concept of “new technology” is of particular theoretical interest. The question arises: what technology should be considered new?

In economic literature, new technology is defined as “progressive means and methods of production, distinguished from those being replaced by scientific and technical novelty and making it possible to obtain, over a certain period of time, an increased economic ...”

effect”¹). Or as: “Such progressive means and methods of production as are distinguished by scientific and technical novelty and ensure an increase in production efficiency”²).

It should be remembered that many definitions of new technology may exist simultaneously, because technology is complex and contradictory and is developing so rapidly that each subsequent researcher is compelled to supplement his predecessor and to point to new features he has discovered in technology.

“Human concepts,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “are not motionless, but are eternally in motion, pass into one another, flow into one another; without this they do not reflect living life”³).

Therefore, bearing in mind the conditional and relative character of all formulations, no fundamental objections can be raised against the above definitions of new technology. They correctly note that the novelty of means and methods of production can be characterized only by the unity of economic and technical indicators.

In our view, the term “scientific and technical novelty” should be clarified. One unknown, “new technology,” is defined through another unknown, “scientific and technical novelty.” But what does “scientific and technical novelty” mean?

It is known that the labor involved in creating new technology has a collective, cooperative character. All contemporaries engaged in improving technology take part in this labor, and indirectly all preceding generations of people as well, since their experience and achievements are used in modern technology. Marx pointed to this character of the labor of creating new technology. He wrote: “All scientific labor, all discovery, all invention is universal labor; it is conditioned partly by the cooperation of contemporaries, partly by the utilization of the labor of predecessors”⁴), and further: “A critical history of technology would show in general how little any invention of the eighteenth century belongs to any single individual”⁵).

It follows from this that scientific and technical novelty itself turns into something conditional, elusive, and even symbolic, since absolutely new solutions to scientific and technical problems do not and cannot exist, because previous generations have taken part, to one degree or another, in their solution. One can speak only of grains of novelty, often consisting merely in a different arrangement of previously known scientific and technical solutions, when this arrangement acquires a new quality and gives a positive effect expressed in obtaining the maximum quantity of output with minimum expenditures. That is, one may speak of what in patent studies is called “essential novelty.”

With the introduction of state certification of the quality of new products, the concept of “new technology” is connected not so much with the novelty of the technology as with its conformity to the best domestic and foreign models.

Machines and technological processes are characterized by a multitude of technical-and-economic indicators, each of which, taken separately, cannot give a complete idea of them. Only the totality of the principal technical-and-economic characteristics, taken in comparison—

¹) Ekonomicheskaya gazeta, 1965, No. 8, p. 8.
²) L. A. Kostin. Material Incentives for Technical Progress. Moscow, 1965, p. 13.
³) V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, vol. 29, pp. 226–227.
⁴) K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 25, part 1, p. 115.
⁵) K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 23, p. 383.

…with analogous parameters of the best domestic and foreign technology, makes it possible to judge the progressiveness and economy of one or another new machine or technological process.

Therefore there arises the need to compare new models of technology with the best domestic and foreign models, in order to reach a final judgment on the advisability of putting them into serial production.

The singling out of substantial novelty (in its juridical sense) as one of the distinctive features of new technology presupposes verification, by competent state bodies, of the novelty of newly mastered products. Such verification should give a start in life to genuinely new technology which, in terms of its technical-and-economic indicators, stands above or at the level of the best world models.

In Soviet legal literature there is no unified opinion on the question of the material content of the concept of “substantial novelty.” Some authors, speaking of the substantial novelty of inventions, deny altogether the presence in it of material content, reducing it to the formal requirements of the law. They see the essence of an invention not in the substantial novelty of the solution of a technical problem, but in creativity^6).

Other authors propose that the term “substantial novelty” be understood as a rise in the level of world technology, a relatively large leap in the attainment of the new^7). However, it is unclear what they mean by a rise in world technology and what constructive and technological changes should be recognized as containing a relatively large leap in the attainment of the new.

Still others, while not denying the material content of substantial novelty, connect it with a new technical effect, without revealing the essence of the latter^8). In effect, the definition of substantial novelty they propose is a definition of the unknown through the unknown.

In our view, those authors who proceed from the essence of a technical proposal are correct in their approach to defining substantial novelty.

“What is required of the inventor is not novelty in general in the solution of a technical problem,” writes Yu. S. Nekhoroshev, “but substantial novelty, imparting new qualities to an object or method”^9).

“The essence of an invention,” says V. Ya. Ionas, “is expressed in its concept, the content of which is disclosed in the formula of the invention. To establish the substantial novelty of an invention, the concept under examination is decomposed into its essential features, and each of them is compared with the essential features of other concepts that are included in the body of contemporary technical knowledge. That which goes beyond the limits of the latter is recognized as substantially new.

Thus, the substantial novelty of an invention is the novelty of its essence”^10).

In Marxist philosophy, essence is understood as the totality of the deepest, most stable properties and relations determining—

^6) I. Ya. Kheifets, Fundamentals of Patent Law. L., 1925, pp. 102, 104; N. G. Ryabchinsky, Registration of Rights to an Invention. M., 1943, p. 6.

^7) K. K. Yaichkov, The Invention and Its Legal Protection in the USSR. M., 1961, pp. 65–66.

^8) N. A. Raigorodsky, Inventive Law of the USSR. M., 1949, pp. 63–64.

^9) Yu. S. Nekhoroshev, Features of Inventive Labor. Tomsk, 1966, p. 40.

^10) V. Ya. Ionas, The Inventive Legal Relation in Soviet Civil Law. Abstract of Candidate’s dissertation. L., 1955, p. 8.

the origin, character, and direction of development of the object. The essence of an object, its quality, consists of those features, aspects, which are stable properties internally inherent in the object, without which the given object ceases to be itself and which determine all its other properties. The features that make up the essence of machines and technological processes are determined by specialists in the corresponding branches of the technical sciences. As a result of comparing the essential aspects of existing machines and mechanisms with new ones, the essential novelty of the latter is revealed. The law indicates precisely how it is to be investigated. “The basis for examination for novelty must be previously issued authors’ certificates, Soviet, pre-Soviet, and foreign patents, previously filed applications, domestic and foreign literature, published reports of scientific-research and design-engineering institutions, works accepted for competition, dissertations, as well as information on the use of inventions”¹¹).

In the practice of improving technology there constantly arises the need to increase the power, speed, and passability of machines, and to reduce their weight. But an increase or decrease in one of these indicators causes undesirable changes in others and leads to a sharp deterioration of all the technical and economic characteristics of the design. A technical contradiction arises, formulated already by Marx¹²). In the course of resolving it, one has to abandon familiar schemes and easy paths, such as increasing engine power, reducing the weight of structures, etc., and resort to fundamentally new technical solutions.

All this can be explained by the example of logging technology. In the logging industry today, the problem of sharply increasing labor productivity and production efficiency is especially acute. However, existing single-operation machines—power saws, skidding tractors, logging trucks—have practically exhausted the possibilities for increasing productivity, while their further improvement along the lines of increasing speed, power, lifting capacity, etc., is very costly. Therefore here, alongside the creation of single-operation machines, the idea of creating fundamentally new, combined machines—feller-skidders, feller-haulers—which make it possible to perform several operations in succession, has recently become widespread. Such machines make it possible to raise labor productivity several times.

Thus, the path of creating substantially new technology passes through the resolution of a technical contradiction, and its objective content consists in a new quality obtained as a result of resolving the technical contradiction, in the increased effect from its application. Substantial novelty—in this understanding of it—is an objective criterion of technical creativity; it makes it possible to distinguish new technology within the stream of technical creativity, while its legal content reflects real technical and economic novelty. Therefore, proceeding from the fact that science and practice have already developed a definite terminology, we see no need to abandon the term “substantial novelty” in favor of another, indefinite term—“scientific-technical novelty.”

¹¹) “Regulations on Discoveries, Inventions, and Rationalization Proposals” of April 24, 1959. In Collection of Decrees of the Government of the USSR, 1959, No. 9, p. 59.

¹²) K. Marx and F. Engels. Collected Works, vol. 23, pp. 394–395.

Having recognized that the distinguishing feature of new technology is substantial novelty, we must thereby agree that new technology must contain elements of invention; it must be patentable, that is, capable of being protected by an inventor’s certificate in our country and by patents abroad; and it must be patent-clean, that is, it must not fall under the operation of foreign patents, and it must not use, even in individual parts and assemblies, those technical solutions that were previously known in world practice and patented abroad.

No fundamental objections can be raised against these features of new technology, even if only because what has already existed in world practice is not new. But questions of the patentability and patent purity of new technology are now acquiring exceptionally great importance in connection with the Soviet Union’s accession, as of July 1, 1965, to the Paris Convention of 1883 “for the Protection of Industrial Property.” Speaking of this at the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU, L. I. Brezhnev noted: “Now that we have widely entered the world market and have entered into competitive struggle with the most developed capitalist countries, it is very important that Soviet machines, machine tools, equipment—in short, all products—not only be no worse than foreign models, but be better than they are”¹.

In addition to the fact that new models of machine tools, machines, and technological processes must meet the criterion of substantial novelty and reflect progressive tendencies in the development of technology, they must be useful to society; they must provide society, like technical progress as a whole, with an economic effect. In the final analysis, new technology is created and introduced into production not for the sake of technology, but for the sake of achieving certain social interests and, above all, economic interests. The progressiveness of new technology, its substantial novelty, must be expressed in the increased economic effect that its use brings to society. But can one judge the expediency of creating and applying new technology solely by economic effect? It seems to us that such judgments would be insufficient.

Many achievements of science and technology are being introduced into our production that improve working conditions and increase labor safety, but do not give the enterprise a direct economic benefit; moreover, they require additional expenditures.

True, the practice of the United States shows that even this technology, which improves working conditions and increases labor safety, produces an economic effect, since it reduces losses from accidents. “In 1963 the sum of such losses in the United States amounted to 5,300 million dollars”².

On the other hand, speaking of the economic efficiency of new technology, we must bear in mind that no calculations can give an exact idea of the savings that its application brings to society, since social savings and the so-called economic effect calculated by economists are different quantities. The economic-effect indicator is a conditional one, and it is significantly less than the actual savings. Its conditionality does not consist in its being fictitious. It is a real quantity, but it is determined with consideration of factors not all of which affect the magnitude of the actual savings. Above all, the economic effect depends on the method of its cal-

calculation, on the period of time that is taken into account in the calculation.

In general, these facts argue that new technology can yield not only an economic but also another positive effect, and that the economic effect itself does not exhaust the concept of social economy.

Therefore, in our view, it would be incorrect to restrict the definition of new technology only to economic effect. New technology can yield both an economic and another positive effect.

By positive effect we mean, in general, any benefit that can be obtained as a result of the application of new technology.

Thus, with comprehensive mechanization, heavy manual labor is eliminated. New examples of technology often do not yield an economic effect in this case, but we cannot for that reason fail to classify them as new technology, because they significantly ease labor and make it safe.

The economic and other positive effect obtained from introducing new technology into production must be significant, because only with a high saving of costs (current and capital) per unit of new technology in relation to the economic or other positive effect obtained from it will our society be able to find the means for the rapid introduction into production of a sufficient quantity of new technology, for the timely technical re-equipment of production.

Some authors believe that, when defining the concept of “new technology,” it is not necessary to indicate its progressiveness, since the latter is already characterized by technical-and-economic indicators.

A. K. Yurchenko writes: “The progressiveness of new technology is evaluated in organic connection with the economy, taking into account the practical results that society can obtain when using the given technology. The measure of progressiveness or of positive effect is one and the same technical-and-economic indicators”³.

One cannot agree with this. It is known that not every novelty in technology is economically advantageous in the initial period of its operation, although it may be progressive and yield a positive effect.

Marx wrote about this as well: “The costs required for the management of an enterprise applying new inventions for the first time are always considerably greater than the costs of later enterprises that arise on its ruins, ... (on its bones). This factor is so significant that the pioneer entrepreneurs for the most part go bankrupt, and only their successors prosper, to whom the buildings, machines, etc., pass at cheaper prices”⁴.

Progressive technology is technology that has absorbed the advanced tendencies in the development of science and technology in our country and abroad, stands at the level of the best domestic and foreign models, and raises the technical level of production, product quality, and other technical-and-economic indicators. Technology that lowers product quality, even with a significant improvement in all other indicators, cannot be considered progressive, just as a machine whose use increases the amount of manual labor cannot be considered progressive.

It should be noted that not every progressive idea can be immediately embodied in metal, in new technological processes, and so on. Progressiveness constantly comes up against the impossibility of putting it into practice. Society must be prepared to perceive new technical ideas, and industry—to make use of them. One may propose a good idea, but if it cannot at once be realized and used in production, then for the time being there will be no such progressiveness.

Thus, without attempting to give a definition of new technology, today it is possible to formulate the general requirements for it. It must:

1. Provide society with an economic or other positive effect; be
2. Progressive;
3. Substantially new (patent-clean, patentable).

N. A. Razumov, without any arguments, declares that: “Assertions are still encountered that new technology should be considered to include those means of labor which are being created for the first time or are an invention. Proposals are often made for a significant reduction in material incentives in cases where the economic effect of technical measures is achieved by borrowing advanced experience. These proposals,” the author concludes, “from the economic standpoint are not only unfounded, but also harmful; the use of a technical solution tested by experience, as a rule, gives a guaranteed economic effect and recoups costs more quickly”^17).

He is quite right that the introduction of borrowed advanced experience and technical solutions should be materially encouraged. But questions of material encouragement for borrowed advanced experience and technical solutions have no relation whatever to the essence of new technology. There is probably nothing bad in our national economy introducing more inventions and technology created for the first time and standing at the level of the best world models.

For the time being, however, we are making very poor use of the possibilities for introducing such technology. Thus, of the 36,838 inventions recommended over four years, 12,327, or 33.4%, were introduced into production^18).

Meanwhile, of all the assignments included in the plan of scientific-research, experimental-design work and the creation of industrial models of new machines, mechanisms, equipment, instruments, and products for 1965, inventions were used in only 7.5%^19).

Inventive activity in our country is growing and expanding, and enormous funds are being spent on it.

The time has come to do everything necessary so that the fruits of this activity may be introduced more widely into production. This will help to increase the efficiency of social production and the growth of the well-being of the Soviet people.

^17) N. A. Razumov, “Economic Criteria and Paths of Technical Progress,” in the collection Economic Problems of Accelerating Technical Progress in Industry, Moscow, 1965, p. 53.

^18) Yu. Ya. Maksarev, “The Mass Movement of Rationalizers and Inventors and Its Significance for the Development of Technical Progress in the National Economy of the USSR,” in the collection In the Struggle for Technical Progress, Leningrad, 1965, p. 40.

^19) Voprosy ekonomiki, 1966, No. 8, p. 5.

1. “Materials of the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU,” Moscow, 1966, p. 45. ↩

2. “National Safety news,” March 1964, p. 46. ↩

3. A. K. Yurchenko, Problems of Inventors’ Law of the USSR, abstract of doctoral dissertation, Leningrad, 1966, pp. 12–13. ↩

4. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 25, part 1, p. 116. ↩