Slashdot Mirror


Feds Bust Chinese Firm's Hybrid Car Data Heist

coondoggie writes "An FBI investigation has led a Michigan couple to be charged with stealing hybrid car information from GM to use in a Chinese auto outfit. A federal indictment charged Yu Qin, aka Yu Chin, 49, and his wife, Shanshan Du, aka Shannon Du, 51, of Troy, Michigan with conspiracy to possess trade secrets without authorization, unauthorized possession of trade secrets, and wire fraud. One of the individuals was also charged with obstruction of justice, said Barbara McQuade, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan in a statement. GM estimates that the value of the stolen documents is over $40 million."

17 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Competitive advantage for the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm, don't we want China to steal all the GM tech they possibly can, so they won't be competitive either?

  2. just think of it as "proactive outsourcing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sooner or later this "secret" would have ended up at the chinese manufacturing plant.

  3. Re:Oh noes by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, they would be busting the US (and other entities) of their segment of the Chinese and Asian markets.

    For instance, Buick is a huge brand in China

  4. Re:Must have been for export by CaptainJeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bit of a joke? What exactly would that be?

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm

    I've owned a 2006 Civic Hybrid for the past four years and calculate the savings based on my driving habits and the cost of gas every year. It recouped its cost over a year ago and has currently saved me well over $1000. It also pollutes less. So...why is this a joke?

  5. Re:Oh noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I assume that you are unaware of how important the Chinese market is for GM. Here is a recent article about it: China sales overtake U.S. for first time. Chinese car companies don't have to come over here, they can hurt GM at home.

    And $40 million dollars doesn't seem unreasonable. That's only about 2000 vehicles at average US prices.

  6. Re:Oh noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Contrary to the opinion of the ignorant masses in the USA, the universe does not revolve around Old Glory. The Chinese companies that may have received these stolen secrets need not export a single automobile to make $40 million worth of documents worth a hell of a lot more (to them), as their own domestic sales potential is huge.

    And of course, the Chinese won't stop there, either. From China, this data will be available to any third-party with the right amount of cash (or other considerations), even countries at the raw end of an American embargo or trade restrictions, such as North Korea, Cuba, various others in Middle East and Africa, etc. China doesn't give a damn who America doesn't want to do business with so long as they continue to import all those cheap Chinese-made trinkets and electronics goods.

  7. Not Patents by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This story is tagged "patents", but it's not about patents. The copied data was a trade secret. Patents are by definition publicly published information. Trade secrets are different. Patents are easily abusable government monopolies that often violate free speech. Actual industrial secrets are essential to remaining competitive, as this case demonstrates. It's cheaper, faster and less risky for a Chinese (or any other) corporation to copy the data that GM (or anyone else) produced over a period of time and at a significant cost, than it is for that competitor to produce its own. The secret was violated by violating agreements and other deception.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Not Patents by k8to · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that were true, there would be no issues with distributing and selling patented software, only running it.

      --
      -josh
  8. Re:Must have been for export by XanC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and that means that the manufacture and disposal slash recycling are processes that use no nasty chemicals? I really doubt it.

    But sure, as long as you can say the word "recycling" that means everything's okay, regardless of how efficient or clean the process is.

  9. Re:I dont understand.... by Favonius+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Japanese arent stupid enough to let it happen. Only in America do we open our doors to anyone and give everything away.

    --
    "Men willingly believe what they wish." - Julius Caesar
  10. Re:Must have been for export by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right. Because manufacturing isn't dirty. And construction isn't dirty. And transportation isn't dirty. Newsflash: You can have processes that aren't that environmentally friendly, but with proper toxin containment and material handling procedures, still operate in an environmentally responsible way.

  11. Re:I dont understand.... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they flew all the way from China to America to steal hybrid plans.

    They could have just gone to Japan and stole from Toyota, much closer to home....

    In America, hiring Chinese people is not unusual. In Japan, it is. Americans view racism as a very bad thing, mostly due to our history of slavery. Japan is not the USA.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  12. Why not just wait... by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Risking jail time for a 'trade secret' (which seems to carry more weight than national secrets that might be protecting lives) seems to somewhat pointless. Why not just wait until GM implements whatever super-secret-mega-tech in a vehicle and then reverse engineer it? Once GM 'publish' it in this form without patent protection it seems to me it is fair game.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  13. Re:Must have been for export by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And what would the mileage be like in the same car with a small turbo diesel?

  14. Ahem! by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Asians eh? Warning, you prejudice might be showing. I'm an "Asian" but I am not offended by your comment. This is because, until very recently in human history, copying what others created is the norm. Be it in language, music, food, vehicles or weapons. You after all got the Chinese to thank for gunpowder, among other things. I don't recall Europeans paying the Chinese any royalties on that.

  15. Re:Must have been for export by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bit of a joke? What exactly would that be?

    The joke is that hybrids get no more mileage than TDIs, but have a higher initial energy cost of production, and a higher initial monetary cost, AND a higher recycling cost, while their fuel (gasoline) takes more energy to produce than diesel fuel. If non-plug-in gas hybrids are the answer then the question was fucking stupid. No matter how you slice it, a hybrid is NOT the most efficient solution readily available on the market today.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:Oh noes by dylan_- · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "L" and "R" sounds in Chinese are different than in English (or don't exist?), so Chinese people have difficulty pronouncing English words with those sounds in. That's the joke (look at the names he listed again).

    English speakers have a similar difficulty with Scottish Gaelic words, because Gaelic has 3 different "L" sounds and 3 different "R" sounds (used to have 4, but one has been dropped). They get a bit tongue-tied when trying to pronounce these words.

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat