There's a rather surprising attitude in this discussion that the IP belongs to a country (e.g. "Allowing non-citizens to get access to the IP should be illegal."), as if it were some sort of nationalised asset in common ownership. It's a privately owned asset for private benefit. It's not a form of property that pays property tax.
How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
31–40 of 208 posts
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#32There's a gentlemen's agreement between nations that this is permissible for poor nations. China is no longer poor and now must act like a wealthy nation and accept IP laws.
Francis Cabot Lowell, who was instrumental behind the industrialization of the US, visited textile plants in the UK and committed their designs to memory, which were later introduced to the famed Lowell textile plants in Massachusetts. At the time (1826), America's per capita GDP was $2,460, which is 68% of the UK's per capita GDP of $3,600. Today, China's per capita GDP is $16,000, or 29% of of the US's per capita G…
Other Western nations are also behind the US in terms of GDP per capita but not as much as China.
Japan is about $39,000, Germany is $41,000, France is like $37,000.
But Poland which is part of the EU is $12,000 as well. Russia is like $9000 per capita.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#33There's a gentlemen's agreement between nations that this is permissible for poor nations. China is no longer poor and now must act like a wealthy nation and accept IP laws.
According to Wikipedia[0] China GDP(PPP)/capita is $16,624, just below Dominican Republic and Iraq. Not sure that's "wealthy" quite yet.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#34I don't get it: why not just not do business with China? If they're going to take your IP, just don't go there.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#35I don't get it: why not just not do business with China? If they're going to take your IP, just don't go there.
Then how do you complete when your competitors already have and their costs are now significantly reduced?
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#36Every time you see a news post about a tech company "partnering" with a Chinese company, you should be thinking they were forced to do that. This has been going on for many years, but it became much more of a "rule" in China since a couple of years ago. It's when most of the large American tech companies started announcing "joint ventures" with Chinese firms almost in unison. However, tech companies seem to be more t…
I understand that the scope and scale of the technology transfer agreements may be unreasonable, but surely these foreign companies aren't "forced" to oblige? I'm not sure if it's on China that many companies find it more profitable to have access to the Chinese market than to hold on to their IPs.
When China was admitted to the WTO, manufacturers in China gained access to other WTO member markets on better terms than they had before.
And, in theory, in exchange for that access, outside companies gained new access to the Chinese market - to investing in factories there and selling products and services there. That was supposed to be part of the WTO deal.
But, the requirement in China that state owned companies had to be partners, that IP had to be transferred to these state partners as an additional condition of doing business -- that's what is unusual, that's where the word "forced" enters the conversation.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WTO rules reallly allow for that sort of required government involvement.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#37And so what??? The US pried the textile and locomotives industries from the UK, check the history of Samuel Slater[1]. Same happened for Japan under Meiji restoration. India and Brazil do the same for pharmaceutical patents, because they're too poor to afford paying them. Stealing IP will happen, no matter what treaties and governments try to do. For poor countries it is a path they just don't have the luxury of givi…
The question of whether it is right or wrong is separate from the question of what we should do about it. The question we should worry about is whether it is in our best interest to turn the other cheek or to fight back.
In turn, we ought to acknowledge both the possibility that fighting back might hurt more than it helps and the possibility that we've been shooting ourselves in the foot by turning the other cheek.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US pried the textile and locomotives industries from the UK This is the sort of argument that an eight-year-old makes to his mother, and the mother responds, "If Jimmy jumped off a bridge, would you?" I don't know if you're an American or not, but there's an very common expression: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Except that this is not jumping from a bridge, it is the tried and tested way to develop a nation's industry. Moreover, it is very funny hearing this coming from Americans who are in one side accepting that this is wrong and then in the same breath denouncing it being done to themselves!
[deleted]
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#39I think I'd rather technology be dispersed without regulatory impedance. There's still the problem of how to reward/incentivize innovation and development of new technology, but maybe the benefits outweigh the costs or there's ways we haven't thought about how to reward and incentivize innovation.
Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies
#40There's a rather surprising attitude in this discussion that the IP belongs to a country (e.g. "Allowing non-citizens to get access to the IP should be illegal."), as if it were some sort of nationalised asset in common ownership. It's a privately owned asset for private benefit. It's not a form of property that pays property tax.
Yes and no. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If person X develops something that they could not have developed without certain institutional and social and physical infrastructure around them then it’s by no means as clear cut.
For example I think most people in the UK would say if the taxpayer has directly or indirectly underwritten something then it’s not unreasonable for a portion of the profit on that thing to be taxed and spend on the NHS, roads, education, whatever the inventor leveraged and benefitted from along the way. That’s not to say that the inventor can’t or shouldn’t get rich themselves, but it is only fair that they give something back.