I'm confused by the accusation of China stealing or copying from the WestNov 21, 2018
If you are a second mover and wake up and find yourself behind the West by decades of not centuries in science and technology, and existing institutions arent in your favor. How, realistically, do you catch up? Start by reading Newton's Principia Mathmatica and maybe in 300 years you will hopefully recreate the steam engine? That will definitely be an honorable thing to do won't it? That way you are not memorizing solutions but learning !
- Microsoft Dial_Me_iHow dared those nasty Chinese to refuse buying opium from the West?
- Intuit qLPF37OP, you seem to assert that stealing IP is OK because China was playing from behind. Does that then mean it’s OK for companies as well? Morgan Stanley can take Chase IP and trade secrets to catch up as well?
- OP - no, don't recreate the steam engine. Buy the steam engine from the people who own it, and then use it to derive a new innovation. That's what a new business in the west would do as well.
- New PppoopHow did the South Koreans or the Japanese do it? Same principle, you don’t have to steal.
By the same principle I woke up today and realized that bill gates is way ahead of me so I should steal from him just to catch up.
- They did the same thing, along with protectionist practices for domestic firms. They are primarily export driven economies bound to the dollar, and they relinquished militaristic sovereignty in exchange so you don't see America too upset about it.
But read about the plaza accords for an example of America fucking with Japan when they got too powerful.
- They didn't show up in the media in US.
Japan arrested a former SanDisk employee stealing trade secret and joined SK Hynix. It is not shown here.
Uber got sued because the whole Otto deal was just thief from Waymo. That didn't end in criminal case, nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
- Yeah it would be okay to read publicly available research.
But stealing confidential intellectual property is theft, plain and simple.
By my calculations, China owes the western world tens of trillions of dollars for theft + interest.
- Lol, How are those not the same? One is simply made legal by the conquerors.
China takes land and says they have the right to do so. If China didn’t want to observe US copyrights, it also claims the right to do so.
Military tech espionage is normal, corporate espionage is commonplace.
“Rules” of international trade and capitalism are just set by whatever state is most powerful. Capitalism only has one natural law: accumulation and growth by any means no matter the consequences.Nov 25, 20180
- @EllisDee25 It’s not easy to make that argument — that the wealth lost in colonialism is comparable to losses in IP today — because there was so much more wealth in the world following the Industrial Revolution.
It is also mixing up who owes what, to say that British colonialism offsets theft of US, German or other western IP. It is up to Britain to sort out what it owes its former colonial possessions.
If we go back far enough or accept proxy offenders that are similar enough, any account book can be made to balance — and then we go further and it doesn’t balance anymore. The law does not work like that, because it does not accept comparing and cancelling offences.Nov 25, 20181
- I’m not bookkeeping here - the actual values or “balance” doesn’t matter.
The point was that “theft” is an illusion when it comes to capitalism. Whoever is powerful determines ownership.
Hell, Hollywood is in LA rather than NYC only because studios stole film technology and thought that LA would be more remote. Now these same studios or their corporate children are copyright hawks!
You had to sign a bunch of nondisclosure agreements for your job, right? Is that because of China or because industrial espionage is common domestically? Hell, it’s the plot to Jurassic Park for gods sake!Nov 25, 20181
- Words like steal, threat, mercantilist, propaganda, non-free, unfair, currency manipulation are only terms that people use to describe actions by their rivals. The corresponding terms for ones own side are adopt, contain or even defend or stand up to, free trade/market, monetary policy. Those who self righteously accuse China of various nefarious deeds do not care about principle as they claim. They don’t even care if the deeds China did are even nefarious. They just want to attack because it is in their interest to do so. Of course, some people are simply repeating the lies they have heard about China.
- While I also want China to liberalize and democratize, and some of the other issues you mentioned also require improvements (and China is making those improvements), calling China lies and broken promises is exaggeration. You should listen to China’s coverage of these issues and you will realize that China also has plenty of reason for anger and outrage. For example, many of the charges made against China are simply untrue l. Currency manipulation is a great example. Normal fiscal policy that China enacts which btw other countries including the US enacts is labeled currency manipulation by a relentless decade long propaganda campaign. When legitimate activities are constantly being labeled as illegitimate, many people end up believing them. Some WTO rules are also by design favorable to counties that are ahead and hold developing countries down. Due to the historic economic hegemony of America and a few other countries, these rules were forced down the throats of everyone else, but today China is able to say No, enough is enough we are fed up!
Don’t buy into the propaganda campaign against China. By now people should be aware of how propaganda in America at least is directed with razor sharp focus on whomever the state designates as the enemy of the day: Al qaeda, taliban, saddam, Iran, Venezuela, Putin, gaddafi, North Korea, Castro, Assad, you name it.
- There are many different info spaces around the world each with its own set of conceptions of good guys and bad guys. These conceptions are all imperfect, but as long as one stays in a single info space, they don’t get challenged. One of the reasons for irréconciliable differences between the inhabitants of radically different info spaces is the is that repeated exposure to the conceptions of ones own info space blinds one to contradictory conceptions from another info space. I’m sorry if this is too abstract.
- Fair enough. I’ll bet that people who disagree with you discount the truth of the claims of [insert country] based their propensity for [perceived misdeeds by said country]. For example, some people discount the claims made by American media because of the blood stained record of America using the media to manufacture popular opinion in favor of wars of aggression, America’s use of its military to spread terror around the world for decades, America’s use of its economic might to bully and coerce states to bend to its will (what its doing to China right now being a case in point), abuse of laws and rules that it creates to persecute countries and politician antithetical to its interests, and regular interference in other countries’ affairs. I’m not saying these views are correct or not, but just pointing out that this is exactly the process that happens when people encounter tenets from very different info spaces. Nonetheless, I think there is hope for compromise eventually as long as no side is strong enough to destroy the other, because perpetual intense conflict is unsustainable for anyone.
- I’m not going to try to change your opinion because that’s not my purpose. Your opinion is based on a deep set of tenets in the a certain info space as is the opinion of everyone else including myself. There are fundamental disagreements in some of the tenets that we hold dear, as well as some agreements. While I don’t consider American involvement in WWII to be a war of aggression, many people in different countries do consider America’s involvement in subsequent wars you mentioned to be unjustified aggression and just like you have a belief system backing up your views on those, they do too. You and those people will probably mutually see the other as extreme or repugnant, and in some sense that’s ok. Regarding my own views, I have a nuanced view on America’s wars and many other wars. For example, I don’t consider the Second Sino-Japanese War to be a case of out and out Japanese aggression. For America’s post WWII wars, I lean closer to seeing them as aggression than otherwise, but in my mind there is no such as thing as pire aggression, only conflict of interest unresolvable through peaceful means backed up by disparity in military power.
You seem to think that China owes America thanks for help that America supposedly provided. I think that such altruistic portrayal of activities that happen to benefit or harm one party in some way is misleading because that’s not the intent of the activity. Furthermore, such portrayals can go the other way, for example should Americans thank Chinese for providing American people with lots of cheap goods for many years, in effect allowing Americans to live a more comfortable life than they could have on the backs of Chinese workers? Should Americans thank China for helping make American companies stronger by increasing their profits for two plus decades through access to the China market? I think these are all ludicrous and we could make similar portrayals back and forth but at the end of the day they are assigning altruism to a transaction in a marketplace of actions.
Lastly while China is certainly not as free as anyone would like, and the current president has made worrying moves in the wrong direction, I don’t think many people outside are clear on the real statement of freedom in China. On public media, people do actually criticize the government and even core tenets of the Party. For example, criticism of the economic principles of Marxism is pretty standard fare. Plenty of talk shows and tv series also raise critical questions about how the Party got into power—you will find tv shows that provide the KMT’s view that the CCP was simply manipulating the population to get into power during the 1940s by lying to the people, striking fake bargains, and attacking rival Chinese rather than the Japanese during WWII. Much more remains to be developed with respect to freedom especially on matter closer to the present day. There are also lots of public and semi public debates on opening the internals of government departments to public scrutiny. As a Chinese person I hope these will continue improving, and there are plenty of others fighting to make that happen.
I do take issue with using the internal workings of a country as a factor when determining the validity of a nation’s position in international issues because I believe those two things are not related. For example, 1930s Japan was both more democratic, free, developed, and overall a better society than contemporary China but that it was Japan invaded China. Having a better domestic system does not mean better international behavior.
- There are many different info spaces but we all inhabit just one money / goods / environment / battle space. That is why debating what’s just and unjust matters.
It’s fair to say, we can’t bring together internal and external behaviour, since we need to judge things on their own merits. If there is something good that another country is doing, it should be encouraged — even if something else they do is bad. In the same way, we should discourage bad things even when there are good things. They don’t pay for each other.
With regards to US trade policy, is the US unjustified in enacting sanctions against China, in light of clear violations of the intellectual property of American companies?Nov 22, 20180
- Japan and S Korea did the same but they are not considered as military threats so nothing beyond lawsuit and fine.
China, on the other hand, we get media coverage and fake news like the super micro motherboard with rice grain chip inserted between layers of PCB.
I am not saying Chinese stealing our shit is cool, but there are definitely some agenda going on behind the scene.
- Read about the plaza accords. It was angreement between America and Europe designed to hamstring Japan's export driven economy by massively appreciating the yen versus the dollar and deustche mark. It succeeded, Japan tried to keep its economy afloat through massive fiscal and monetary stimulus, but due to the small size of the domestic economy there weren't enough good investments to support all that capital.
- Japan agreed to the accords because it needed access to foreign markets. They were stuck between a rock and a hard place with no correct decision. The BoJ's lending practices were an attempt to stop a recession that had already been set in motion.
Anti Japanese sentiment was also quite prevalent in the US in the 70s and 80s. Tying the plaza accord and the Japanese economic crisis is a pretty common opinion, I don't know why you would treat it as a conspiracy theory.
- Isn’t it refreshing to hear a Chinese perspective? If you want to respond that China lacks freedom of speech, you have a great point, but it does not mean China perspectives are invalid.
In fact one of the areas where China does a better job of informing people is that on big international disputes like this, Chinese mainstream media covers both sides of the argument. Yes that means the points made by America and other nations are broadcast to ordinary Chinese people along with arguments for the Chinese side. By contrast, the Chinese arguments are rarely mentioned in any American media except possibly a few alternative media sources, leading to highly charged feelings against China/chinas government, bordering on contempt and hatred, which I believe is exactly what the elites in this country want.
I strongly suggest checking out some Chinese tv programs available online to see what Chinese are saying. You might not agree with some of what they are saying, but I think it will lead to more understanding and less tension.
- This isn’t about “China” it’s about particular companies and breach of contract. That is what it means to be part of a more open world where people interact on the basis of law. Thinking about it in terms of the “tribe” or “nation” is how China ended up behind in the first place.
- N0v so you’re talking about trade secrets which are actually one of the few things that CAN be legally stolen. You may not infringe upon another company’s copyrighted products, but trade secrets are not copyrighted or protected under US law. A “trade secret” might be something as simple as what margins you are bidding on an RFQ, or as complicated as the ingredients of Coca Cola. Coca Cola could very well copyright their recipe, but copyrights are subject to expiration, and trade secrets are not as long as they are kept secret.
The issue isn’t China stealing trade secrets. The issue is China stealing home grown copyrighted/patented information and producing like copies under their own brands.
- A phenomenon that has been going on for a while is that people have certain worldviews which are highly influenced by their interest. When some thing goes against their interest, they will oppose it no matter what but rationalize their opposition using principles and negative terminology as well as propaganda. This happened on both sides of any conflict and lies behind the issue that the OP raised.
- The proper response to that, is to sort out what are and are not just expectations. The OP is arguing that Chinese companies should engage in unrestricted violations of licensing agreements because it is in China’s (not necessarily the companies’) interest to level the playing field.
Extending the OP’s argument to other things — OP doesn’t introduce any restriction — we could argue that stealing from wealthy children is okay for children who are poor enough, and so on. Where is the limit?Nov 22, 20180
- I don't get why companies whine about IP theft. Don't like it, don't do business with china. That they still do is evidence that it's still a net beneficial transaction.