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

How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 266 posts

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#241

Post by croutonwagon »

justinclift wrote: post #195
croutonwagon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What content is it missing. It has the entire article text and hyperlinks that I can tell.

??? Let's start with the very first paragraph from the original: President Trump said last month that talks for a phase 2 trade agreement with China were on the back burner. If they ... Let's look at the very first paragraph from the "Outline" version: I would bring experience, design, engineering and related technologies developed over my 40-year career in the automotive industry building race cars and ... Those are…

Outline tends to attempt to cut out the first portion summary text.

It could be a formatting issue with bitly. Tinyurl may work better in some instances.

Ultimately it does the job tasked, to get you the text locked inside the paywall.

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#242

Post by murgindrag »

scruple wrote: post #240
murgindrag wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can get more than one thing. I mean, sure, you didn't write anything wrong, but how is that an argument against "We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets?" How is this even connected to the flow of the conversation? Do you respond this way to everyhing? I can just imagine your household. [Kids running in]: We got a pizza party at school! [Parent]: No, what we got was a new robber baron class of ultra-rich billionaire…

> how is that an argument against "We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets?" It's not, you just read it that way. > How is this even connected to the flow of the conversation? One thing (outsourcing our manufacturing -> getting cheap Chinese shit in return) has clearly led to the other (the profits not trickling down through the economy -> our political parties becoming influence peddlers). For some bizarre reason you…

>> how is that an argument against "We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets?"

>It's not, you just read it that way.

Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument.

> For some bizarre reason you seem really offended by what I wrote.

I wasn't offended at all. I was a little overwhelmed by the apparent stupidity of the non sequitur response (and I use 'apparent' very deliberately -- it's possible you miswrote what you meant, or I misread it). I think this summarizes my reaction best:

http://quotegeek.com/quotes-from-movies/billy-madison/1122/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXEdJ_Gtx0

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#243

Post by chillacy »

hacker_newz wrote: post #212
nsoonhui wrote: post #14

Not really off tangent: I won't be surprised if this attracts lots of comments along the lines "US/ WESTERN COUNTRIES did this before too and therefore no better than China". I just can't understand why when it comes to geopolitics, HN just can't keep the discussion related to the submission? Somehow US/ western countries have to enter the discussion as a bad benchmark...

How does preempting a hypothetical add to the conversation?

> Not really off tangent,

> I just can't understand why... HN just can't keep the discussion related to the submission?

I personally enjoy meta conversations but I hope OP realizes the irony of this comment.

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#244

Post by chillacy »

jonahbenton wrote: post #208
naringas wrote: post #175

intellectual property is conceptually corrupt. at the very least we should be honest and admit that it's all about being continuously paid for things we already finished doing (sometimes even generations ago). but I am pretty sure that it will have to get worse, far worse, so bad that a Kafka seems tame before people get convinced that ownership over language is stupid.

The other way to look at it is to recognize that it is hard to invent and prove the value of something, but easy to copy and pollute once that is done. We are all familiar with unfortunate examples of this. And yes, copyright extension, yadda yadda, but no one is being forced to enjoy, for instance, Mickey Mouse. That they do, and it endures and retains value- why is the creator not entitled to protect it as an asset…

> why is the creator not entitled to protect it as an asset for as long as people value it?

That masks the fact that IP laws are a form of regulatory capture. The original deal was to gain exclusive ownership _for a limited time_ at the cost of disclosure and understanding that it would eventually enter the public domain.

Fun fact, before trademark laws were enforced, baggage makers like Louis Vuitton just increased the quality of their stitching / logograms in order to differentiate themselves. In fact the modern LV prints are a result of this process of trying to make his goods too expensive to counterfeit. Now luxury brands can stamp on inferior quality materials and sell just as well. There's no competitive force to increase quality anymore, these brands can just put their logos on decent-but-not-top-end materials.

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#245

Post by scruple »

murgindrag wrote: post #242
scruple wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how is that an argument against "We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets?" It's not, you just read it that way. > How is this even connected to the flow of the conversation? One thing (outsourcing our manufacturing -> getting cheap Chinese shit in return) has clearly led to the other (the profits not trickling down through the economy -> our political parties becoming influence peddlers). For some bizarre reason you…

>> how is that an argument against "We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets?" >It's not, you just read it that way. Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument. > For some bizarre reason you seem really offended by what I wrote. I wasn't offended at all. I w…

Nah, it's very clear your hackles are raised. You're trying very hard to insult me and it's honestly hilarious.

> Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument.

Do you respond this way to everything? I can just imagine your household.

...

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#246

Post by beaunative »

tlear wrote: post #186
beaunative wrote: post #145

This happen to be a well-reported news on the Chinese internet where I was able to find more details. And the author's own claims are dubious and sketchy. It was never a three way deal, he may have deals with a Chinese company that owns share. That maybe why he said it's a threeway deal, but it's two two-way deals. He never made any deal with Chinese officials, but another Chinese business owner who made the deal wit…

Author is an extremely successful businessman and inventor with something like 30+ years of track record running business in US without defrauding anyone. I will believe him over PRC propaganda any time.

BTW. There exsited over hundred start-up EV manufactures (who received investment) in China since around 2014. About 40 of them still exist as of today with the top 5 claiming over 90% of the market share (that does not include traditional car makers expanding their business). It is the most fiercest competition you could ever see and a powerhouse of innovation. Those information should be easily available to you had you know any VC person following this track.

Even if the author is presumably a 'sucessful businessman' by any definition. Ask how many of those failed ventures have a 'sucessful businessman' as their leader.

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#247

Post by echlebek »

scruple wrote: post #245
murgindrag wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> how is that an argument against "We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets?" >It's not, you just read it that way. Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument. > For some bizarre reason you seem really offended by what I wrote. I wasn't offended at all. I w…

Nah, it's very clear your hackles are raised. You're trying very hard to insult me and it's honestly hilarious. > Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument. Do you respond this way to everything? I can just imagine your household. ...

You literally quoted their assertion and then responded "No".

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#248

Post by scruple »

echlebek wrote: post #247
scruple wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it's very clear your hackles are raised. You're trying very hard to insult me and it's honestly hilarious. > Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument. Do you respond this way to everything? I can just imagine your household. ...

You literally quoted their assertion and then responded "No".

Yeah, I did. You'll have to forgive me for having been loose with the language I used to write a random comment on the internet. I'm sure I could've worded it differently and in a way that made more sense to the specific context.

You'll also have to forgive me for not responding to that specific critique until you came along, I guess. I'd have been happy to reply to that previously if I hadn't been very condescendingly talked down to about the literal definition of the word no and then told that I ran a household like an asshole, etc...

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#249

Post by justinclift »

croutonwagon wrote: post #241
justinclift wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

??? Let's start with the very first paragraph from the original: President Trump said last month that talks for a phase 2 trade agreement with China were on the back burner. If they ... Let's look at the very first paragraph from the "Outline" version: I would bring experience, design, engineering and related technologies developed over my 40-year career in the automotive industry building race cars and ... Those are…

Outline tends to attempt to cut out the first portion summary text. It could be a formatting issue with bitly. Tinyurl may work better in some instances. Ultimately it does the job tasked, to get you the text locked inside the paywall.

Clearly it's not capturing the entire article text. :(

Personally, I consider that to be a fundamental flaw. eg "Not fit for purpose.

Re: How Chinese Officials Hijacked My Company

#250

Post by unishark »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #235
unishark wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secrets now? How did anyone ever develop in the first place if secrets were a dead end? Anyway, even if you saddle them with a presumption of stupidity, they can still do the stuff that isn't secret. You can make money on commodities and low quality products in a developing country with low costs. Whereas people in developed countries need to chase after the bleeding edge because they can't survive without the higher…

> You can make money on commodities and low quality products in a developing country with low costs. The factory owner can make a lot of money, but without advancing technology there is no way to raise the standard of living. The PRC's hold on power is absolutely predicated on raising the standard of living. > Why are you discounting very small countries exactly? At least in Singapore's case, being a strategically lo…

> Saying it's (always?) (usually?) the governments fault is capitalist propaganda.

I gather from your post that you may not have much experience with startups or small business on your own, despite where we are. Because all the things you say are hard or impossible or just not done, are things you see daily. People with no IP working around that of others, which is the same problem for you as a foreign company. People in developing countries starting businesses to trade with the west (i.e. you). People in developing countries looking to what the west needs, gaining the skills via western training (often free), then making lots of money providing it to the west. And yes the killer is governments. The "wealth of nations" is a simple model: skilled laborers use technology to produce more than they need, which they can trade to people with complementary skills. That's the whole system. Borders and cultures and IP are just details to work around. Ultimately there is one big market. The only countries that needs to relive the 19th and 20th centuries in this silly development-process narrative everyone pushes, is places who's govt restricts them to a little local economy foolishly.

Post reply on HN