Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#201

Post by bduerst »

jessaustin wrote: post #196
bduerst wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tu quoque fallacy [1] is not proof. Stealing IP without contributing to creation costs is bad behavior on several levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy

You assume that "IP" is a real thing. It is an invented concept. Those who insist on its reality do so for their own benefit. Those who deny it, do so for their own. How are disinterested parties to decide? Well, they might examine how genuine the two positions are... There is a difference between "I can do this bad thing, because you have already done it" and "this thing is not bad, otherwise you wouldn't have done…

Whether or not IP is "real" is a red herring from hypocrisy being a valid defense for bad behavior. You can split hairs on the definition of IP, but the general consensus in economics is that you need to ensure coverage of the fixed creation costs of intellectual property to ensure robust investment in your society.

And no, tu quoque definitively intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion.

This applies to whataboutism, and exactly what we're talking about in this thread of deflecting back to the U.S.'s inconsistent behavior in the past.

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#202

Post by stevenwoo »

Leary wrote: post #28
YorkshireSeason wrote: post #11

There'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…

Is this GDP measured per free person in America or does it include slaves or is it the traditional American a slave counts a 3/5 person for the purposes of government? I recall reading somewhere James Madison bragging about his yearly investment in his slaves was $12 and his return was $250, and this is only about 10 years before the UK outlawed slavery in total across the empire.

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#203

Post by chillacy »

weberc2 wrote: post #155
chillacy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the offer on the table for developing countries is either take the poison pill or never develop (where the poison pill is lax IP, lax environmental laws, child labor, exploiting other countries for resources), I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country which wouldn't make that sacrifice.

That's not the offer on the table. China is already a developed country (and they already got there by more than their share of exploitation).

Depends how you define "developed country". The world bank seems to consider GDP as the main factor, if you disagree with the common metric then you'll have to define how you see it.

China has a lot of wealth on display but overall isn't so well developed if you remember the fact that so many people live there. If China were as developed as the US, we would expect it to be something like 3x the economic activity as the US.

GDP per capita:

USA: 57k

Canada: 42k

UK: 39k

...

Kazakhstan: 8k

China: 8k

Libya: 7k

In addition by some metrics, it could be exploiting even harder to achieve further industrialization. For instance, China is way behind the US in CO2 emissions per capita even today, and if you count total CO2 emissions, the US is still #1. If China had equal CO2 emissions as the US per capita (which might indicate a similar level of industrialization), that would be disastrous.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#204

Post by chillacy »

ericd wrote: post #152
chillacy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s definitely in American interests to defend IP, but I wouldn’t try to make moralistic arguments, they just come off as hypocritical given the history.

The thing is, you can always dig up some hypocrisy if you go back far enough. Our ancestors doing something bad doesn't forever nullify arguments against other people doing that thing to us. You don't deserve karmic retribution because of what someone else did, even if you benefit from it.

I would discount the validity of advice to stay away from performance enhancing drugs from someone who uses them. I mean they're right, but I don't feel... inspired to do so.

There are other ways to convince people, like appealing to their interests or punishing with retribution.

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#205

Post by mistermann »

zeroname wrote: post #162
mistermann wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be more accurate to say: "Assymmetrical tariffs are more favorable than symmetrical tariffs, something practically every economist agrees on, for certain situations "? Does there ever come a point where they should be normalized? From most of what I've read in mainstream news coverage, this topic seems to be considered not valid for discussion, as if the answer is self-evident (despite very few of the report…

> Does there ever come a point where they should be normalized? The ideal situation is no tariffs on either side , which is normalized. > for certain situations? For any given economic scenario there's a practical intervention that would result in a better result than what the theory suggests is the best expected result. There's also an infinite number interventions that result in a worse outcome. The problem is, how…

> The ideal situation is no tariffs on either side, which is normalized.

Fine, but that's not the case now, correct?

> The problem is, how do you know what the right intervention is? You don't.

Do you or practically every economist know?

> It's not self-evident, the question just has remained settled for over a century.

I'm not sure what question you're referring to.

China became a member of the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001, and was given developing nation status which comes with a variety of benefits. Should that status ever change?

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#206

Post by schiffern »

zeroname wrote: post #199
schiffern wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I didn't ask a question. Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, " nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that." Everything else is noise.

> Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, "nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that." You really want to play that dumb semantic game? Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify financial profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure for a disease, then the public profits. > Everything else is noise.…

If calling false statements false is a "semantics game," then yes I'm happy to play.

>Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify financial profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure for a disease, then the public profits.

Your attempt to walk back isn't credible. Your immediately previous sentence that this backs up was "IP laws also support innovation." Tautologically, if your goal is public benefit then it belongs in the public domain, with no need for IP protection.

_Unless_ your purported goal of "public benefit" is just private enrichment in disguise: corporate R&D subsidies, wherein publicly-developed tech is handed over to private companies for "commercialization" (typically by licensing it 'for a song' compared to the taxpayer's risky R&D expenditure, with private companies cherry-picking 'winner' technologies to license while the public picks up the tab for the many inevitable losers that come from anything risky). This is very common, of course.

If your true goal is public profit then no IP is needed. Only if your goal is private profit (handing over an exclusive license to one's buddies) does IP come into play.

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#207

Post by zeroname »

schiffern wrote: post #206
zeroname wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, "nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that." You really want to play that dumb semantic game? Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify financial profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure for a disease, then the public profits. > Everything else is noise.…

If calling false statements false is a "semantics game," then yes I'm happy to play. >Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify financial profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure for a disease, then the public profits. Your attempt to walk back isn't credible. Your immediately previous sentence that this backs up was "IP laws also support innovation." Tautologically, if your goal is public benefit then it belo…

> Your attempt to walk back isn't credible.

I'm not walking back on anything, you claim you "disproved" my statement as false, I "proved" it to not be false, even if one wanted to play a stupid semantic game. I'd prefer we didn't play that game in the first place.

> Your immediately previous sentence that this sentence back up was "IP laws also support innovation." Tautologically, if your goal is public benefit then it belongs in the public domain, with no need for IP protection.

Of course my goal isn't "public benefit". Like I originally said, the point behind the statement is maintaining private investment. But my statement, as written, isn't wrong as you tried to show. My intention is entirely orthogonal to the statement being false, you're raising a false dichotomy. You failed at your nitpicking, that's all. Did I even think about all that when writing the sentence? Of course not, I didn't expect to end up debating someone who would resort to such primitive tactics.

You've weaseled away from the issue since the beginning, namely that private investments far exceed public investments and that without a way to protect that investment (i.e. through intellectual property), that money would disappear. If you want to argue that everything would be surely better if the government researched, developed and marketed novel drugs, then do that. Make a good case for it. Don't go about nitpicking casually written sentences, it's intellectually embarrassing. It just shows you're a waste of time to talk to.

Re: How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies

#208

Post by schiffern »

zeroname wrote: post #207
schiffern wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If calling false statements false is a "semantics game," then yes I'm happy to play. >Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify financial profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure for a disease, then the public profits. Your attempt to walk back isn't credible. Your immediately previous sentence that this backs up was "IP laws also support innovation." Tautologically, if your goal is public benefit then it belo…

> Your attempt to walk back isn't credible. I'm not walking back on anything, you claim you "disproved" my statement as false, I "proved" it to not be false, even if one wanted to play a stupid semantic game. I'd prefer we didn't play that game in the first place. > Your immediately previous sentence that this sentence back up was "IP laws also support innovation." Tautologically, if your goal is public benefit then…

>private investments far exceed public investments

Nope, sorry. Public investment just fell below 50%... for the first time since WWII. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-govern...

>It just shows you're a waste of time to talk to.

haha, you're a peach.

Attack the messenger to your heart's content. Game, set, match.

Post reply on HN