China Defends Its IP Practices, Says 'We Paid Up'

hackingbear writes "Countering accusations that China's high-speed rail technologies are knockoffs, the head of China's Intellectual Property Administration in a conference said (paraphrasing): "We bought technologies from German, Japan, France, and Canada. We paid up. It is perfectly legal. We then innovate on top of them like most other inventions in the world. Why is that pirating?' (Link is to a Google translation; here is the original.) He cited China's ability, the world's first, to build high-speed rail in a high mountain area as an example of additional innovation."

Comments

Human Translated Links and More POVs

[eldavojohn]

I don't know why we are relying on a Google translated article when Xinhua News Agency (state run) offers their own English translations (second copy) of this exact news release. And they're much more readable. Such news sites often offer me periodic enjoyment.

Patent and innovation discourse aside, it should be noted there's an interesting piece comparing the locality of populations in the US vs China. Let's face it, China (and the Southeast Asia region this connects them with) have a higher population density and a greater need for this high speed lengthy rail. It's also going to bring much needed economic development via freight shipments to very poor areas that the United States probably wouldn't experience on a corresponding scale.

Oh, also, there's some pretty entertaining rail-envy springing up.

And before you call it outright theft, consider the history of the "technology transfer" program that seeded all this. It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason. I wonder how this is going to affect future "technology transfer" programs to China. Also, one last bit of praise: NPR's radio coverage of this has been top notch.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[khallow]

It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason.

They aren't going to collect. China is a sovereign nation and can as a result do whatever it wants. That trumps justice in this age.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[eldavojohn]

It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason.

They aren't going to collect. China is a sovereign nation and can as a result do whatever it wants. That trumps justice in this age.

You're right unless you upset another nation's technology on such a level that you jeopardize your status in some special group that gives you benefits with other nations. Also consider this fact (outlined in the above NPR interview): Siemens of Germany, Alstom of France, Bombardier of Canada and Kawasaki of Japan exported technology to China in order to ensure that third world peoples in Asia could benefit from it. Now, they did make money off of that export but those same companies are now are staring down Chinese competition everywhere in the world from Russia to Brazil to the United States! How are they going to compete with lax Chinese labor and pollution? I don't know what the license contracts read but I highly doubt these companies signed away complete rights to their bread and butter for a few hundred million.

Let me ask you this: if China sends the above companies a big "F U" in response to their desire for justice, what are the chances that any more technology transfer is going to be allowed into China by anybody when four years after you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements? Being a sovereign nation is fine and dandy but if China wants any part in maintaining their image as a just sovereign nation, then they better see this court case through.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[cyfer2000]

Siemens of Germany, Alstom of France, Bombardier of Canada and Kawasaki of Japan exported technology to China and transferred full IP to China. It was supposed that by the time China fully learned those knowledge, they already came up with some other better solutions than the designs they sold to China. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out this way.

As for future technology transfer to China, I don't think Chinese need to worry about it. If you look back in history, similar situations have been happening for several thousand years all over the world. And I do expect this will happen in future.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[durrr]

This is the essence of IP. You're big, in the case of china: really fucking huge. So you take all IP you need, and give the IP owners the fingers.
Now of course, if you're magnitudes smaller than the guy owning the IP, you're fucked over if he notices.

It's the same old story, the big trying to set up the system so status quo is maintained if it goes against them and ignored if it benefits them.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[zeroshade]

Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[memyselfandeye]

To continue this point, SOP with China especially, and Asia in general, is to surrender IP via technology transfer agreements and consulting agreements. This is bad philosophically, but necessary practically as a business can get something for teaching and training, or nothing at all. Either way, you will have your IP stolen so most shops have decided to get what they can while they can. This was all tolerable before, but now that China is competing in primary markets with effectively stolen technology lots of industries are getting pissed, not just train builders.

The whole point behind patents is to encourage innovation by granting an inventor time-limited monopolies on their ideas so long as they teach their invention to the world. Using trains as en example, Siemens figures out how to build a better flim-flam widget inside the boffin-tube to make the ding-dang wheel spin faster... which somehow improves the Train. By agreeing to tell the world how it all works, they are allowed to prevent others from selling this thing to the world for a two decades. The idea being, Alstom researchers can use that knowledge to make an even smaller flim-flam that leads to an even better train.

What China is encouraging is businesses to no longer patent certain processes and methods, instead opting for the trade-secret route. While the /. population in general probably feels less patents are good, it isn't. Instead of teaching the world about flim-flams and boffin-tubes, Alstrom and Siemens will lock up their technology inside a vault as "Trade Secrets", jealously guard it from outsiders and even insiders who don't need to know. Innovations stumbles and we all suffer as a whole.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[eln]

It's an English translation made by the Chinese government of a press release put out by...the Chinese government. Why would the English translation be any more or less suspect than the original Chinese document? It's not like there aren't any bilingual Chinese/English speakers out there who could translate it independently, so there would be no purpose to making the text different in any meaningful way.

Also, calling China a "tin-pot dictatorship" is silly. A tin-pot dictator is one who, despite delusions of grandeur, is ultimately of little significance to the world at large. However you might choose to characterize China, "of little significance to the world at large" it is not.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[eldavojohn]

Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".

Okay with this sort of logic, you're not going to see any company willing to invest into R&D more than four years of return from that innovation.

It's fine if you want to draw the line at four years or four decades or four days, I don't care. But you have to realize that this will severely affect R&D if it's your own fault that you failed to improve past what you just innovated. Justifying someone using your patents to directly compete with you is only unfair when you were granted those patents assuming a longer time to recoup the money you invested into those patents.

I'm not arguing for or against patents and I'm not arguing to lengthen or shorten the time they are in effect. What I'm trying to do is get you to understand the repercussions of doing any of the above.

Corruption, lax pollution laws and questionable labor practices make China very difficult to compete with. We've exported so much manufacturing there because of this. Is it a bad thing? Only when you're a company that's facing brutal competition because you engaged in "technology transfer." If you're telling those companies it's "their fault" for not out-innovating the Chinese, I would argue that the Chinese could pay someone 1/10 to manufacture the technology and bribe a local official to ignore that excess acidic precipitate from the mine making the rail and come out underbidding you on any contract the world over. Regardless of whether they improved on your design or not.

In my opinion, pure unbridled capitalism is a very devastating force and responsible IP laws are a good thing. IP infringement is Chinese culture. They play by their rules and if you're not prepared for it, do not engage in business with them.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[xednieht]

"United States probably wouldn't experience on a corresponding scale" Pure horse shit. The only reason the United States doesn't do more with mass transit including rail is the government is a sell out to to auto and airline industries. America's corporate lobby from the industrial age is relegating the United States to third world status in the digital age.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

They aren't going to collect. China is a sovereign nation and can as a result do whatever it wants. That trumps justice in this age.
This age? I missed that time the Senate of Rome and the Council of Carthage got together in a court preceeding overseen by the Parthians to solve their land dispute over territory that is now called Spain. Oh right, b/c that never happened, in every age force will trump justice.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[arth1]

I don't know why we are relying on a Google translated article when Xinhua News Agency (state run [wikipedia.org]) offers their own English translations [peopledaily.com.cn] (second copy [beijingnews.net]) of this exact news release. And they're much more readable. Such news sites often offer me periodic enjoyment [beijingnews.net].

Because Google offer a literal translation, i.e. not one that may have pieces missing that the human translator thought unimportant or didn't know how to translate.
The price for this is, of course, that literal translations can be quite hard to read and understand. But when you want everything that was said, it's usually a safer bet.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[magarity]

The only reason the United States doesn't do more with mass transit including rail is the government is a sell out to to auto and airline industries.

More likely a combination of several other factors:
 
1. The central government in China just says 'build a rail line there' and construction starts next month. In the USA it would take five years of environmental impact studies, lawsuits from Friends of the Little Frogs Who Live in the Way of the Proposed Rail Line, lawsuits from people who don't want their land condemned and/or a big loud train rumbling through the neighborhood.
2. Americans want the convenience of personal transportation.
 
Combine the aggravation of part 1 with the lack of demand in part 2 and you get the state of mass transit in the USA.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[arth1]

It's an English translation made by the Chinese government of a press release put out by...the Chinese government. Why would the English translation be any more or less suspect than the original Chinese document?

The human factor.
1: Because humans are prone to error, and may by mistake skip an important word or phrase.
2: Because of cultural conditioning. When faced with difficult translations, a human translator might leave something out or write svada rather than putting the wrong words in someone's mouth, or lose face by guessing wrong.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[magarity]

Oh, and I forgot:
3.China's population density is many times that in the USA. Most people in China live in the strip of land along the coastline and there are 1,600,000,000 of them. The subway in Beijing for example runs 6 car trains every 2 minutes during rush hour and it is standing room only. The light rail here in Denver is a 3 car train every 15 minutes and you can usually sit. (yes, I've ridden both) One of these public transportation systems pays its own way on ticket sales and one of them is HEAVILY subsidized by taxpayers. Your guess which one is a sensible public mass transit system and which one exists mainly to make people feel good about some abstract idealized notion of public transportation.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[zeroshade]

I only said 'four years' because that is what you said. The point I was making is just as someone else mentioned, if the companies didn't license their patents with a "Do Not Compete" clause then they cannot complain when the Chinese come back and compete against them. If they've innovated during those four/ten/fifteen years, then why haven't you? It doesn't matter what you assume, if you license your patents to someone, you can expect them to compete against you. If it wasn't a long enough time period then either you underestimated how long it would take them to bring it to market or underestimated how long it would take to recoup your money.

Also, R&D should be continuous. You do your R&D until you have something to bring to market, while that gets put into production and is rolled out, you continue to do R&D to continue to innovate past what you've just come up with. If you don't continue to do R&D then don't complain when someone else improves upon what you've come up with before you do.

It's common knowledge that you can pay someone in China 1/10 of the cost of someone in most anywhere else. You factor this into your decision making. Essentially, as you said, "they play by their rules and if you're not prepared for it, do not engage in business with them" is the point. There is no reason for any of these companies to be complaining because 1) nothing 'illegal' happened here as the Chinese paid for the patents, 2) the companies knew or should have known what they were getting into and dealing with as it is all common knowledge, especially for a business.

Also, you would have to define what you mean by 'responsible IP laws' before I could agree with you that they are a good thing. Though I do agree that pure unbridled capitalism is very devastating.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[K. S. Kyosuke]

2. Americans want the convenience of personal transportation.

Yes, that's why they are willing to suffer being groped by the Testicle Scrutinizing Authority - so that they could enjoy the very personal transportation in a flying rabbit hutch.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[khallow]

What China is encouraging is businesses to no longer patent certain processes and methods, instead opting for the trade-secret route. While the /. population in general probably feels less patents are good, it isn't. Instead of teaching the world about flim-flams and boffin-tubes, Alstrom and Siemens will lock up their technology inside a vault as "Trade Secrets", jealously guard it from outsiders and even insiders who don't need to know. Innovations stumbles and we all suffer as a whole.

I don't buy it. There's two things to consider here. First, if the technology gets used, then it can be reverse engineered. And if valuable technology is locked up and not used, then it provides a huge incentive to the people who developed the technology to leave the business for one that will develop the technology. This sort of environment favors companies which can quickly turn a concept into product.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[Gamma747]

1: Because humans are prone to error, and may by mistake skip an important word or phrase.

Google Translate isn't exactly flawless.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[hedwards]

Bullshit. Yes, and we could also go back and live in mud huts as well. It's certainly possible, it's just not realistic.

The Chinese government hasn't advanced, they've used the techniques of sweatshops and virtual indentured servitude which have been in place for a really long time, referring to them as advanced is a bit like saying that the steam engine is advanced because if you run out of fuel mid route you have the option of chopping more wood or burning other things to keep you going.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[hedwards]

And as they start to do that, the costs of labor are going to start to seem exorbitant. Between the US and China the cost of labor is shockingly close in price to the point that we're starting to see companies pulling out of China because the savings they were promised aren't there. The firms they're doing business with decide they want to renegotiate the terms of the contract as soon as you've set up shop and the quality and productivity of the labor is crap.

If they then have to deal with a substantial loss in IP that would be a very, very serious blow to the Chinese government's efforts to draw in foreign investment as they're cheap, but they're not that cheap.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[hedwards]

Actually, mass transit is mostly done on a local basis. If your local area isn't doing it, it's up to the voters to make it happen. Or you're living in a rural area with low population density. As it is Amtrak handles all the passenger service between major cities with a few minor exceptions. The cost is roughly what it would cost you to fly, the main advantage right now is that it doesn't come with a mandatory groping.

And the reason why the feds took over Amtrak was because the train companies were going out of business. It wasn't something they had to force their way into, the train companies couldn't operate profitably. As in they couldn't pay their debts or break even on a regular basis.

I'd be surprised if it would be profitable at this point to run train service of that sort except in small pockets. Like from the airport into town or between cities that are relatively close together. The price of such things goes way up in the US because we don't have a lot of mostly empty space between the cities. Either it belongs to somebody or it's a part of a national forest or national park.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[sjames]

What China is encouraging is businesses to no longer patent certain processes and methods, instead opting for the trade-secret route. While the /. population in general probably feels less patents are good, it isn't. Instead of teaching the world about flim-flams and boffin-tubes, Alstrom and Siemens will lock up their technology inside a vault as "Trade Secrets" [wikimedia.org], jealously guard it from outsiders and even insiders who don't need to know. Innovations stumbles and we all suffer as a whole.

Actually, it would be a preferable state of affairs at this point. It's been a while since patents actually served their intended purpose anyway. There's an entire legal specialty dedicated to producing over-broad patents that at the same time don't ACTUALLY provide the information needed to reproduce the technology. Likewise, they're far too good at the game of interlocking patents to make sure that even when the first expires there is a thicket of newer patents to make sure nobody can use the supposedly unencumbered invention years after the patent expires.

The nice thing about trade secrets is that they only work for genuine innovators. There are no trade secret trolls. Someone else's trade secret can't claim ownership of my own work just because they one time considered a similar solution to a similar problem (or they just thought it up but couldn't solve the last problem needed to make it practical). If they want to sue me, they have to show that I actually stole their trade secret, not just that the solution I came up with happens to be similar to the one they came up with. Trade secrets automatically fail if they are obvious.

By all means, let Bezos lock the one click "innovation" up in a vault and watch as a zillion others independently re-invent his "non-obvious" trade secret in about as long as it takes to type in the php code.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[khallow]

So what? That doesn't make my observation even the slightest bit less correct.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[interval1066]

"Corruption, lax pollution laws and questionable labor practices make China very difficult to compete with. We've exported so much manufacturing there because of this. Is it a bad thing?"

For the US, yes. Who knew that you actually had to make something for your currency to be worth anything. Go figure.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[magarity]

Yes, that's why they are willing to suffer being groped by the Testicle Scrutinizing Authority - so that they could enjoy the very personal transportation in a flying rabbit hutch.

Airlines are public access transportation, not public mass transportation. Public mass transportation even in the form of high speed rail, will not compete with airlines except in a few cases so this isn't a valid comparison. One can take 5 hour trip on the new Beijing to Shanghai high speed rail versus a three hour flight and this makes the train a valid competitor. China has a LOT of large cities that are this distance or less between for high speed rail and that makes it more worth their time. How many city pairs in the US are there? New York / Washington DC and Los Angeles/San Francisco are the only two that come to mind. Maybe Chicago/Pittsburg also?
 
Anyway, the USA's population is too spread out and too small to support a nationwide network of high speed rail that could compete with air travel. And even if it were built, a Los Angeles to New York high speed train would still take 12 hours nonstop and it's more likely to have to stop adding many more hours. Never mind that to built it would cost a noticeable fraction of GDP and take 15 years. Compared to a 6 hour ride by air? So yes, people prefer the "flying rabbit hutch" over rail in the USA.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[dwandy]

But you have to realize that this will severely affect R&D if it's your own fault that you failed to improve past what you just innovated.

I'm sorry, that is the patent lie: companies will innovate because if they don't they'll fail in the market. In all of history it is only the incumbents who lobby for protection. The new innovators (potentially tomorrow's incumbents) innovate because they want to bring a product to market. Progress is always made on the innovations that came before.

I'm not arguing for or against patents and I'm not arguing to lengthen or shorten the time they are in effect. What I'm trying to do is get you to understand the repercussions of doing any of the above.

I wasn't going to respond until I read this line. Coupled with your other statement I can't read this any other way then an endorsement of the patent system.

and responsible IP laws are a good thing.

ah, there it is. Not sure why you hid your bias in the middle there...

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[Koreantoast]

English translations provided by foreign news sources are hardly reliable not just for China but for all foreign media in general whether democratic or despotic. A lot of foreign media sources will edit, omit, or add to articles that are translated into English; they claim it's to make them friendlier for foreign audiences, but in reality it's to tightly control the image being portrayed "outside" versus what is sometimes a much more rough and tumble coverage domestically. Editorials that criticize the government, strong nationalist sentiment, and other nuances tend to be toned down or not even translated.

Keep this in mind when you read foreign news sources English sites; you'll get a very different picture reading the professional translation services that cover foreign media if it's available.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[dwandy]

The whole point behind patents is to encourage innovation by granting an inventor time-limited monopolies on their ideas so long as they teach their invention to the world.

While that may have been part of the original sales-pitch for patents, it fails in the real world. This is largely due to Treble Damages from a purely legal stance, but in many shops there is a Not Invented Here syndrome that reduces the likelihood that anyone will look for techniques to do anything in the patent library.

I am not aware of anyone using existing patents for the purposes of innovating or problem solving. Anyone care to chime in on an instance where the engineers at their company read patents for the purposes of learning? All I have heard is lawyers asking engineers to read them. And this seems to be only to either engineer around a known patent, or to prove that their product somehow doesn't infringe on a patent.
Anyone?
Bueller?

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[pantherace]

To be fair usually it's "software patents are evil"

As far as patents being evil. They aren't inherently evil. Just that what is allowed to be patentable, is way more than the set of useful inventions. It may be to the point where the only way to make them actually promote ideas is, where we throw them all out because of abuses, and start with a much stricter set of rules. (Yes, that sucks for some people/companies)

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[zeroshade]

referring to them as advanced is a bit like saying that the steam engine is advanced because if you run out of fuel mid route you have the option of chopping more wood or burning other things to keep you going.

Actually, compared to what came before it, the steam engine was extremely advanced.

Also, if you could please read what I wrote. I was not saying that the Chinese themselves were advanced, I was specifically talking about the improvements that they made which are being pointed at as a reason they can't compete.

Yes, sweatshops and virtual indentured servitude are bad. However, you can't say that an invention that results from a Chinese R&D department isn't advanced simply because their manufacturing uses techniques that we consider to be wrong.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[kangsterizer]

It sounds like there's going to be lengthy lawsuits lasting a decade or more and that the companies have reason to sue -- good reason.

They aren't going to collect. China is a sovereign nation and can as a result do whatever it wants. That trumps justice in this age.

I'm not sure in which age it did not.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[arth1]

No, but it doesn't skip what it doesn't understand -- it leaves the word untranslated.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[kaiser423]

Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".

Uh, the original company had to spend the R&D money to get it up to that speed, expecting a ROI over the next couple of years.

The Chinese company had none.

The problem here is that if you can't get any ROI, because a company that just copied your design immediately starts selling it, and at a lower price since they didn't spend any R&D money, then the companies here aren't going to do any R&D because it's a net loss.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[zeroshade]

Or, maybe just wait a bit longer until you license the patent to them? Remember, they didn't copy the design, they were licensed the design. They paid for it.

Also, the Chinese company had R&D to come up with those "improvements" that everyone was complaining about.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[h4rr4r]

We did the same damn thing for a long time. The USA was the IP infringer of the day as we built our nation. Everyone goes through this.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[straponego]

"what are the chances that any more technology transfer is going to be allowed into China by anybody when four years after you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements?"

I would say very near 100%. Corporate executives are compensated based on quarterly performance. They got to where they are by being sociopaths, and power makes people more sociopathic. They don't give a rip about destroying their company two years from now; they can move on to their next victim, with a nice golden parachute on the way out-- see Carly Fiorina or Jonathan Miller.

We could mitigate this by requiring that most executive bonuses be deferred and scaled to performance of the company over, say, three years. This would have some nice side effects-- companies would have to reconsider layoffs and offshoring, for example.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[AK Marc]

Denver/Salt Lake
Dallas/Houston
Miami/Atlanta
San Diego/Phoenix

I can think up quite a number of links between million-plus population centers. Some closer that others, so I don't know how you define "pair." Though the number of million-plus cities in China is higher, there are a number of them in the US.

Or look at a population list like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas and take the top 10, 20, or even 30 (the cutoff where those above have 2 million or more people) and make a sensible partial mesh of those cities. The reason such transport doesn't work in the US is the whole chicken/egg problem. People won't do it because it hasn't been done. People won't ride it because they aren't used to the idea. People aren't used to the idea because it's never been done.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[JAlexoi]

If getting a private jet pilot's license would be as easy as getting a driver's license and prices of private jet's would be comparable to cars, then you could say that. Otherwise people just don't have a comparable alternative.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[Eric S. Smith]

You do realize that there's more to translation than replacing words, right?

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[losfromla]

actually, it does, it takes away the "umpf!" and modernity that your "in this age" gave it.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[suutar]

What's the point of learning from a patent? You can't use what you learn; it's patented.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[angus77]

I wouldn't assume many people know that.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure that a big F U would make much of a difference in other tech transfers.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[magarity]

Let's take your first city pair and look at the numbers: yahoo travel lists 19 daily direct flights on a weekday between Denver and Salt Lake City. Half of the planes are CRJs, about 70 seats, and the other half are A320/319/318 at around 120 seats. Rough total of about 1700 to 1800 seats. A single train seats 500 to 600, or about 3 trains per day. One every 4 daytime hours. A little googling around reveals the construction cost for medium speed rail in the USA is probably around 2 to 6 million, depending on the terrain. Distance from SLC to DEN as the crow flies is 368 miles and if we take the mid cost because some of the terrain is mountainous and some is relatively flat, comes to 1.47 billion $$. That's a whopping pile of money for setting up track for three trains per day.
 
Do these numbers add up to a sensible project or not?
 
Compare to China where the Beijing to Shanghai train departs full of people every 15 minutes. Again, in one of these places, there are enough people to make it worthwhile and in the other there is a romantic notion of trains being better somehow. It is not chicken/egg, it is not about adjusting perception; it is about economic feasibility.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[sumdumass]

You realize that most of Europe is doing that same right?

Don't limit this just to the US. European reliance on China and India has increase severely in the last decade or so. Take Germany for instance, they about pretty much abandoned most of their manufacturing and concentrated on high dollar manufacturing of luxury items or similar stuff. They import most of their low quality crap and product almost nothing that can't be sold for a premium.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[AK Marc]

I don't understand. You sound like you've made up your mind, and now are making up scenarios that support your view. Yes, when you compare the cost to lay track to the cost to lay roads in the sky for airplanes (obviously zero) the airplanes will come out ahead.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[magarity]

I'm not making up scenarios; you suggested Denver to Salt Lake City as a pair of cities that might get high speed rail. I have illustrated this is not cost effective. I have tried to think of viable city pairs in the US and only a couple come to mind (see higher up post). I think high speed rail is a waste of taxpayer's money in this country and yes, since airports are already built and are MUCH more flexible than fixed track, airplanes come out ahead, how could they not? Feel free to enlighten me with your own numbers on the cost effectiveness of rail travel.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[mabhatter654]

the real joke is that because of nearly everybody exporting production to China, they end up with many "factories" that see the BIG PICTURE even better than in first world companies because they get to build stuff for LOTS of companies that's being hidden from each other in their OWN countries. Think FoxConn with their Apple contracts. Eventually, FoxConn will fix so many of Apple's problems that only petty little "patents" will keep them from starting their own business selling iPads inside China. Rinse and Repeat for thousands of other businesses.

ON TOP OF ALL THAT, Chinese PHd/Grad students and visa holders pillage stuff all the time, and pass it back to factories in China, this is directly out of the research of the big companies that "need" foreign workers long before the patents are even filed!

China is a lot like the USA in the 1920's it's a land of robber-barons while a small portion of the public becomes a "middle" class. I don't see China falling for the unlimited power of corporations like the USA did...

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[mabhatter654]

the issue is that "China" bought the patents, not "Chinese companies". Sure a company bought them, but the GOVERNMENT passes out the manufacturing where needed, meaning those engineers get a big pile of patents from all the companies at once!! That's something impossible to get in First World. In the first world, to build something like the train, it would take a hundred contractors bickering with each other, to get half the results. Each company would petition the government to use it's proprietary motor, gears, tracks, etc, etc so the finished system is a poorly constructed mash of a bunch of stuff companies grudgingly allowed to work together.

In China they skim the best of the patents (and they manufacture all this for the first world anyway so they know the cost/benefits better than anyone) and build THAT. In the next decade they're going to get SO far ahead of everyone else it will be silly.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[e_hu_man]

one rogue employee at ford constitutes "chinese culture?"

semantics aside, let's not forget that it wasn't THAT long ago that american cities' skies were choked with pollution (clean air act 1963), its rivers nothing but convenient places to dump lots of industrial waste (sort of still true, albeit not to the levels china is probably doing, but maybe was prior to 1970) and its workforce was abused (8hr workday wasn't generally accepted until 1937). that was with a relatively slow march through industrialization to today, perhaps 120 years or more. china is blasting through the same stages of development in, what, 20 years, maybe less?

more specifically on the issue of ip infringement, however, is that a deeply rooted chinese value is to make maximal use of what you have. in that sense, the very idea of something intellectual being property is relatively new to china. the thinking is something like "if i know how to do something and i'm not hurting anyone, why should i be prevented?" it's sort of a natural extension to the proverb "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." in short, what you call "ip infringement" is, from a different perspective, just putting shared knowledge to use. don't get me wrong, ip infringement does indeed happen in china, but it's certainly not a central tenet of chinese culture. it can't be because the very notion of ip is not central to most chinese people's thinking.

i understand that this rather simple notion of sharing can not be applied to modern-day technological business. it takes tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of person-years to design and make an innovative, modern train. if that cost can't be recuperated, innovation isn't sustainable and use of knowledge actually does hurt the people who originated that knowledge. my point is simply that there is a tendency to characterize china as cesspool where there are no rules and to use trivializing negative language to describe what happens there when, in fact, they're going through a lot of similar growing pains other nations have been through, there is a lot of good, cool stuff happening in china and a deeper understanding of their way of thinking would bring to light the rules that seem so slippery to a different base set of values.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[mactard]

To be fair, New York runs 10 car trains than run every 2-3 minutes and those are also very much so standing room only. It's just Denver not being remotely dense enough.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[khallow]

It wouldn't be unusual for those proccesses to be widely applicable to other industries, and they might not be redily discoverable from the finished product.

Both the business that knows the process and the people that either developed or run the process have incentive to apply the process elsewhere or to sell the secrets to a competitor.

I honestly don't know whether having patents is better than not. There are benefits and disadvantages to both approaches. But I just don't buy the claim that locked up technology and other important knowledge will be a major problem. It just doesn't make sense from a economic point of view to create things of value, then not use them. And humanity has a long history of revealing trade secrets. Even now, trade secrets form an important part of modern business practices, yet are routinely revealed.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[sznupi]

What? Contrary to popular belief, derailing is very survivable (especially in the case of high speed trains, counterintuitively). Plus surveillance of tracks is easy.

Re:Human Translated Links and More POVs

[sznupi]

Car industry is unable to operate profitably, too (with all the subsidies of highways and ignoring externalities of fuels, they still needed to be bailed out). Don't start me on airlines...

we don't have a lot of mostly empty space between the cities

What, what, what? Not when discussing mobile phone coverage, I guess, then it's "poor coverage due to vast spaces"? And trains are quite compatible with forests or national parks.

high speed tail?

[Foobar of Borg]

From TFS: "He cited China's ability, the world's first, to build high-speed tail in high mountain area as an example of additional innovation."

Where can I find some of this high-speed tail? Or, are Chinese girls in the mountains just desperate?

Re:high speed tail?

[commodore64_love]

ANY girl in a remote area is desperate.
No need to visit China - just to Appalachia (like west virginia).

Re:high speed tail?

[LongearedBat]

Those mountains are really cold, which is why they've developed way to have really fast quickies, before something freezes off.

Re:high speed tail?

[Noughmad]

The Slashdot Cybernetics Corporation: Their fundamental flaws are completely hidden by their superficial typos.

Re:high speed tail?

[rubycodez]

that's actually something you'd more typically hear in SE asia, not China mountains. Kuro5hin fell apart years ago, quality writers left and nothing but whackjobs, whiners and momma's basement boys there now.

Re:high speed tail?

[Curunir_wolf]

Where can I find some of this high-speed tail? Or, are Chinese girls in the mountains just desperate?

Forget about it. I've been getting high-speed tail for 20 years - and I have the patent!

Re:high speed tail?

[Cwix]

Naw.. the girls in West Virginia already have boyfriends, usually their related but thats not the point.

(joking)

Re:high speed tail?

[Cwix]

"their" should be they are

This is preemptive grammar nazi deterrence.

Re:high speed tail?

[Cwix]

What.. come on.. should I have said common law husband?

Re:high speed tail?

[NeverVotedBush]

Maybe Cwix meant "their related" as in the possessive? Their relatives...

Re:high speed tail?

[Foobar of Borg]

Where can I find some of this high-speed tail? Or, are Chinese girls in the mountains just desperate?

Forget about it. I've been getting high-speed tail for 20 years - and I have the patent!

In that case, your patent has recently expired. Let the belated sexual revolution begin!

Innovation?

[Nidi62]

I'm sure China has done just as much innovation on those rails as the Soviets did with the Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)

Re:Innovation?

[Midnight Thunder]

I'm sure China has done just as much innovation on those rails as the Soviets did with the Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)

We could also cite how USA and Russia innovated rocket technology, thanks to the Germans. I am not saying this is any better or worse, what I am saying is that if you comb through history then you will probably see many more cases of technology ending up in other countries without some sort of 'due' being paid. While it is only fair to compensate the original inventor or innovator, there are limits to doing so.

Re:Innovation?

[Nidi62]

You mean where we brought over those German scientists, gave them jobs, citizenship, and a chance to continue their work and research?

Re:Innovation?

[jbssm]

Yeah, lot's of Mengele's wannabes went there, that's sure.

Re:Innovation?

[Guignol]

But in other places it is common theft, err innovation practice to do something well known *on a computer* or *over the internet*
Why wouldn't we accept to extend that concept to do things *in the mountains* ?

Re:Innovation?

[Sedated2000]

In many of those cases it was as part of what the allies considered repayment for their debts and losses in WWII due to the war and aggression of Germany. Germany had no money to repay at the time, so the allies took technology as part of the "spoils of war". For their own part, most of the scientists were allowed to continue their research and were given their lives back. Also, I don't recall any historical sources I've read claiming that the technology was invented entirely by the US... they all stated those facts of acquisition.

Re:Innovation?

[Mr. Underbridge]

We could also cite how USA and Russia innovated rocket technology, thanks to the Germans.

I wasn't aware we were at war with China.

Re:Innovation?

[bbasgen]

Military history is replete with examples of copying innovation. Most notably, the inability to copy superior innovation has a tendency to cause said belligerent to loose the war. There are countless examples, but to counter the Soviet one above, the T-34 sure became an awfully popular design model for tank designers everywhere in the world, including in the vaunted Wehrmacht. :)

Re:Innovation?

[Kanasta]

Busness patents, software patents, what makes you think USA nowadays uses patents to encourage further innovation?
China is stuck in the 1700s, when patents were used to publish new inventions and allowed people to improve on them.

Re:Innovation?

[sznupi]

It's hard to beat Oerlikon :)

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[asnelt]

Every innovation is based on numerous previous innovations. I must agree with the Chinese here.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[Ogive17]

In my experience with Chinese "innovation", they take a product that is well known to the more developed areas of the world and create a shitty copy and sell them as the original. They get a higher profit margain because consumers believe the goods to be the real thing while the original manufacturer gets screwed over because the junk products are being sold on the market with their company name attached to it.

That is the Chinese innovation that I know.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[rubycodez]

no, back in time there must have been some original innovations by individuals with truly unique minds on which most other things were built.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[Torvac]

right, you invest tons of time and money into research and development to design and build mag levs and they just buy one and copy and build their own ?

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[zeroshade]

Except that all of those "original innovations" were built upon many previous smaller innovations. It's just how things work.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[spiffmastercow]

Except that all of those "original innovations" were built upon many previous smaller innovations. It's just how things work.

But was there a Prime Innovator, or an infinite sequence of infinitely small innovations?

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[TheLink]

original manufacturer gets screwed over because the junk products are being sold on the market with their company name attached to it.

Which is different from this Slashdot story, where they are trying to sell stuff with Chinese company names attached to it, and claim they have paid up for the IP.

And come on, who really thought that China was willing to spend lots of money just to "build a railway between a few locations", especially when the contract has "technology transfer" written in it.

For some perspective from "the other side":
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/22/131520776/china-s-technology-transfer-draws-ire

Mr. SHIROUZU: Well, starting in 2004, four foreign companies - Siemens of Germany, Alstom of France, Bombardier of Canada and Kawasaki of Japan - they agreed with China to transfer technology so that China can come up with the high speed trains. China spent money for that. In Kawasaki's case, China spent close to $760 million to come up with a train that goes as fast as 155 miles per hour.

And over the last five to six years, China's train companies learn quickly, enough so that they started adding technology, innovation to the original technology. And they believe they've done enough re-innovating that trains that they came up with are their own technology.

BLOCK: You talk in one of your reports for the journal with folks at one of China's high speed rail companies, CSR, and a spokesman says, look, this is nothing like Kawasaki's bullet train. He has this great quote, we attained our achievements in high speed train technology by standing on the shoulders of past pioneers.

Mr. SHIROUZU: Yes. That's what they say. They don't deny the fact that their latest trains are based on foreign technology. They don't deny that. Foreign companies are saying that you haven't made enough additional innovation. There's no way you can call this your own technology.

But, China says, no, no, no. You know, we made enough additional innovation that we're calling these trains the result of our effort. So they feel that they can export these trains to places like U.S., Brazil, Russia maybe, and foreign companies feel that that is in violation of their contract.

So looks like a contract dispute to me. If the foreign companies made mistakes in "legal" in their haste to seal the deal or "gain a foothold", then too bad so sad.

Everyone with a clue already knew what China wanted. It's been known for years what's going on, see what the US Bureau of Industry and Security says:
http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarketresearchrpts/techtransfer2prc.html

Most US and other foreign investors in China thus far seem willing to pay the price of technology transfers - even "state-of-the-art technologies - in order to "gain a foothold" or to "establish a beachhead" in China with the expectation that the country's enormous market potential eventually will be realized. A primary motivation for investing in China at this time and despite the difficulties and risks involved, is in order to beat foreign and domestic competitors to the China market.
Numerous US high-tech firms have agreed to commercial offset or technology transfer agreements in exchange for joint ventures and limited market access in China. An increasingly frequent type of commercial offset is the establishment of a training or R&D center, institute, or lab, typically with one of China's premier universities or research institutes located in Beijing or Shanghai.

If you play with fire don't act surprised if you get burned.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[diskofish]

I don't think anyone really believes they are originals, I think they're perfectly happy paying less for a knock off.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[zeroshade]

I highly doubt that either could be proved. However, judging from the history of philosophy and Aristotle's works (since you invoked his unmoved mover =P) it seems to be much more likely that it is an infinite sequence of small innovations. Consider, if you will, that Aristotle's philosophy groundwork came about due to observing the natural world and making observations and then coming up with ideas that would explain those observations. He then built upon these ideas with more ideas to clarify them. Granted this is an incredibly simplified way of explaining it, but I assume you know this due to your choice of wikipedia link.

Looking at the chain of events, you can see a small 'innovation' in philosophy followed by a sequence of more small innovations that built upon the original. In this example one could conceivably consider Aristotle's observations were the 'Prime Inventor' or they could consider his observations to instead be based upon the 'innovation' of whatever ideas had sparked him to think in the manner he did to decide to make those observations, infinitely small right?

Philosophy is a funny thing because in many situations you can equally reason in multiple directions and all are just as correct as each other.

My personal opinion on the matter is as follows: An accident occurs which results in an observation. The observation thus results in an invention as the observer discovers how to recreate the accident. Each string of invention and innovation could be traced back eventually to a situation as such. However, I would not call the accident->observation->discovery->invention cycle a 'prime innovator' nor the person who did the observing (who is frequently not the same as the one who has the discovery or invention). I also, however, wouldn't consider it to be a sequence of infinitely small innovations because it seems to be more like a series of disconnected but relatively related actions that, perhaps like an exponential series, continuously build upon one another becoming larger and larger very quickly. Because these series' exist for every innovation ever and constantly interconnect and overlap, there is no way for there to be a 'Prime Innovator' as, in the model I have created, many people and many different times observe many different things and have very different ideas on what they just observed. Innovation just happens, I'm sure a mathematical model could be derived to explain it but I'm also just as sure that everything can eventually trace to some infinitely small random observation that was made by several people and told to another person who reasoned enough to put them together.

In short, a real life example of "A Wizard Did It" =P

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[ATMosby]

Sounds like the WalMart way.

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[AK Marc]

Then you are obviously ignorant. Take Huawei, for example. They don't sell their routers as Ciscos. But they stole the innards from Cisco (even stealing bugs, which is how they were caught). And since then, Huawei has eclipsed many makers of such electronics because they stole from everyone to catch up, combined the good, dumped the bad, and made that work. And since that time, they've improved their stolen product to something unique and actually innovative. Ever taken a trip to Huawei and had a tour of their factory? I have. They understood the kool-aid they drank. Their "tours" consist of things like looking at their distribution warehouse, without actually getting to look at anything that isn't already publicly released. So the thieves are very protective of their stolen goods.

And in many cases, the ripoffs sold as originals *are* originals. When your factory is in China, what's to stop them from overproducing by 10% and selling those out the back door?

Re:Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

[ryanli]

As a native Chinese I would only say that barely any educated people here in China would believe the hoax that those copy-and-rebrand stuffs are "innovations". Only those government officials and old people would buy the rubbish you mentioned.

Who is accusing China of stealing trains?

[commodore64_love]

I agree with the spokesman that it's not theft if they bought the designs legally.

Re:Who is accusing China of stealing trains?

[Maxo-Texas]

Aye. Information wants to be free. ...

that's an odd mixture of sarcasm and irony and non-sarcasm btw.

I'm tired of getting ripped off by corporations where I pay $20 for a product sold for $2.50 in china and then that laborer (with 1/8th lower costs for anything not at the "world price") turns around and competes with me. And I'm legally forbidden from buying it for $2.50 in china and reimporting it for $3.00.

I'm for capitalism- but this isn't capitalism.

Re:Who is accusing China of stealing trains?

[commodore64_love]

That was random but you raise a good point. US and EU factories are being shipped to China/India because their labor works for 1/10th as much.

But then we can't buy direct from those countries because of artificial barriers, so instead we have to pay the inflated US/EU prices. NOT a free market. - Therefore we should require all Chinese/Indian workers to have safety standards comparable (but not equal) to US and EU workers, else we will block those goods from "bad" factories entering our shores.

Yes that means iPhone (from Foxconn) would not be allowed to enter. Or most other cellphones.
They can either increase their standards to protect their workers from harm, or else not sell product.

Re:Who is accusing China of stealing trains?

[sznupi]

Maybe not most cellphones, even if just barely. Nokia ships 1/3rd of sales, most of them not made in China / most of their ~dozen manufacturing plants are elsewhere. Samsung and LG have the next 1/3rd between them - and while some of it is also in China, I would expect quite a lot in Korea / they are quite protectionist (but I don't know). Throw in part of Japanese market (though they won't be shipping anywhere / are isolated), and maybe it is more than half...

Of course, many components come from China anyway. But if blocking those, you won't be able to manufacture anything, anywhere :/

Going to expedia now....

[grub]

China's ability, the world's first, to build high-speed tail in high mountain area

Time to book a flight to China's mountains.

Re:Going to expedia now....

[phoenixwade]

China's ability, the world's first, to build high-speed tail in high mountain area Time to book a flight to China's mountains.

Nah, the low speed, High quality, Swedish made tail is the way to go.

Re:Going to expedia now....

[tibman]

It's a Trap!

No surprise.

[DarkDust]

When the deal regarding the Transrapid was announced in Germany most people didn't take notice that the deal involved China wanting to eventually build the trains themselves which of course means licensing the technology and transferring a lot of know-how. So people who now accuse China of stealing obviously didn't pay attention back then because at least to me and a few of my friends it was immediately obvious that eventually we would get cut out of the picture. So what, we've got the Transrapid for over 20 years now and all we have in Germany is a test course. In Shanghai, at least it's really transporting people even if in the long run it won't be our technology any more. Better than not making use of it at all.

Re:No surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the deal regarding the Transrapid was announced in Germany most people didn't take notice that the deal involved China wanting to eventually build the trains themselves which of course means licensing the technology and transferring a lot of know-how.

The problem with the Transrapid is that it can't really be sold in countries with well-developed rail system, since conventional high speed trains like TGV or ICE provide a slight less speed/ more noise at a fraction of the costs.
Since most advanced countries with high population density have a well developed rail system. So it's actually impossible to sell besides precisely an advancing economy like China. So the only choice was to scrap the whole thing and let billions of tax payer german marks/ euros evaporate.... There wasn't really much choice there.

Oh, don't say US, the tracks are very expensive, so covering distances needed for the US would beyond anyones means.

If you "own" intellectual property

[circletimessquare]

you own the means of production in a limited and short term fashion. pretty soon, your claim and your basis for ownership evaporate

if you own the factory, you actually own the means of production, and therefore you actually are in power

the usa has moved all of its production to china, retaining the intellectual property "keys". these keys will rapidly become useless and unenforceable, and all the purple faced tirades about piracy will be met with a shrug. and the usa will find itself locked out of those factories, and without power

the pursuit of profit has resulted in a very short sighted situation where all the means of production are being moved to an autocracy that does not share our values. it will take a number of years, but this will not end well. and it is all because the captains of industry want fractionally higher stock market returns, and joe six pack wants more cheap plastic crap at walmart. for these empty goals, the common man and the man in power in the usa are selling their country's soul

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[LongearedBat]

I agree, though what you say applies to more nations than just the US.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, without outsourcing production and the resulting enormous price-drops, the equally enormous developments in all kinds of areas, like smartphones, probably wouldn't have happened.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[cyfer2000]

If you have a factory, but you don't know what to make, how to make, where to buy raw materials, where to sell your products, how to sell your products, how to ship your products to the market, you have nothing but useless junk. It is the "system" that makes profit in the long run. As long as the US is controlling the "system", it gonna be just fine to move production to some other places. BTW, you can not make every body happy. A government is not here to make everybody happy.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[erroneus]

I'm sorry, but while I agree with you, this is actually old news. This has been a chief complaint of many Japanese and other nations who have shifted their manufacturing to China and neighboring countries.

Your "predictions" are actually already happening and has been happening for quite some time. Quite often, it would be a factory "owned" by another nation's company and is shut down and seized by the Chinese government who "never actually gave up their rights to ownership."

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[circletimessquare]

you're correct, i should have said "western world", or some better term, not just the usa

europe, canada, australia, india, brazil: the threat is the same. when an autocracy is married to capitalism in such a way that they can treat their citizens as slaves: no right to choose their own leaders, free range abuse and no means of recourse, then in this autocratic capitalism can outcompete democratic capitalism. nominally, democratic capitalism is superior to autocratic capitalism because it is more stable with happier citizens. but it is also more expensive to produce things, since where workers have rights they agitate for better treatment

i used to be against protectionism. but now, i think we need protectionism more than ever. globalism only works when it is between nations that play fairly. and by that, i mean treat their citizens with respect. denmark shouldn't have any protectionism with australia which shouldn't have any protectionism with brazil. but all 3 should stop trading with china

currently, in the blind pursuit of greed, democratic capitalism is giving away its means of production to a country which does not share the same values. in the interest of the well-being of the workers of democracies, democracies should not trade with a nation that does not view its citizens as deserving of the reigns of power

of course, no one is going to listen to this: it hurts the bottom line. therefore, it will take many years before enough see the threat looming

there will be a day of reckoning years from now when, after all that pursuit of profit winds up creating a chinese autocratic colossus, the democracies of the world will be playing defense. all of their factories will be in china. all of their corporations will be bought out and headquartered in beijing. china is in this way becoming the ultimate expression of pure capitalistic power: no citizens rights, all pursuit of coin

at which point, the conflict will be taken to the interior of democracies, between capitalist forces controlled by china (buying off politicians, for instance), and the principles of democratic respect for the common man. the problem being, at that point too much power will be in chinese hands, and the fight might be lost. china, the autocracy, will take over the world without firing a single shot, because the corporations who are taking advantage of cheap labor in china now, in the future, after the buyouts, will simply be agents of beijing to enforce the flow of capital into china, by subduing democratic instincts in their former home countries

i'm not a xenophobe, i have nothing against china or chinese people. but i do have a burning fear and hatred of autocracy. if china would go democratic, i would not have a problem with the rise of china in the world. but as an autocracy, i must do all i can to sound the alarm and fight the rise of china, the autocracy (i would not fight china, the democracy, which would the greatest thing to come to pass, if it ever does)

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[VGPowerlord]

Entertainment is a very large export for the United States. While likely not the largest (which is food), I wouldn't be surprised if it's number 2 or 3.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[homer_s]

"joe six pack wants more cheap plastic crap at walmart"

We all want cheap things (or rather, things made more affordable) - that is how wealth is created.
Insisting that all things be produced by 'ourselves' (whether as a family, city, county, state or nation) make us poorer - think of all the things you are using now and think about how hard it would be for all of it to be made by yourself. Or your family. Or with just people in your town. Or with just people in your state.

Division of labour is what creates wealth.The borders of a city or state or country do not change this fundamental fact.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[diskofish]

Or better yet have someone else do it, rather than end up in jail. It is an appropriate and justified response to OP's issue.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[grumpyman]

Interesting you point out that China is a "autocracy". I'd argue that if they have the similar kind of democratic system, profit-driven captialism and market freedom, they'll probably ended up like us (i.e. outsource to other countries and owning IP). Do we have a problem with our political/economic system?

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[BJ_Covert_Action]

This is worth looking at: Manufacturing in the United States.

Some important tidbits:

The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries.

And:

Main industries include petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining. A total of 3.2 million – one in six U.S. factory jobs – have disappeared since the start of 2000

Now, that said, it appears we are still currently trending towards outsourcing just about all manufacturing:

The manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy has experienced substantial job losses over the past several years. In January 2004, the number of such jobs stood at 14.3 million, down by 3.0 million jobs, or 17.5 percent, since July 2000 and about 5.2 million since the historical peak in 1979. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950.

However, it does not appear that it is all gloom and doom at present. In other words, we have the opportunity, still, to maintain our position as the world's leader in manufacturing if we take the time to fix the problem now. I see where you're coming from, but your post reads like an excerpt from Captain Hindsight, declaring boldly just what is wrong now, and what has gone wrong with our country in the past. It is far more useful and important to propose solutions and work to implement those solutions than it is to proselytize about the way things are vs. the way things should be.

Right now the United States is in a position to fuel two large industries that very few other societies can compete with us in: robotics and commercial space development. If we manage to invest in future industries and technologies then we will spawn jobs at the manufacturing level as well as at the research and design levels. What's more important, we will progress forward as a society. However, if we dwell in the past, trying to maintain older industries, or industries that we no longer have use for (really, how often do we employ high speed rail around the U.S.?), then we will stagnate as a society.

So yes, I agree with you, we need to be careful about outsourcing manufacturing and production to other countries. That is very true. But we also need to keep focused on developing new industries and new technologies that can carry us into the future. Bemoaning what has already been done is not nearly as insightful preparing for what is upcoming.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[allanmackenzie]

you mean cheap electronic crap. Where was your computer made?

Allan

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[circletimessquare]

dude, i'm not a xenophobe, really

i was saying a lot of things against china, but the only thing i have against china is the autocracy, really. i wanted to make sure no one thought i had nationalistic or racist issues, so i said i'm not a xenophobe, and i really am not

if you are so hypersensitive that just the bare fact of me saying "i'm not antichinese" then that must mean i'm somehow antichinese, you've got some trigger happy judgments there pal. some would call you overly judgmental. others might even call your hair triggered judgmentalism being prejudiced

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[sjames]

Actually, the topic of this discussion proves that the U.S. will NOT control the "system" in any meaningful way. Evidently, China had little difficulty figuring out how to make, where to buy materials, where to sell, and how to sell. Otherwise there wouldn't BE a story here at all.

They're not stupid!

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[sjames]

Division of labor is great. Shipping all jobs to the lowest common denominator country to get cheap labor that has no rights while leaving others unemployed is NOT division of labor.

Joe Sixpack NEEDS cheap plastic crap at Walmart because he had to find a new job and it doesn't pay very well.

Too bad the new job is also being offshored.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[fat4eyes]

if you own the factory, you actually own the means of production, and therefore you actually are in power

This must be the reason that why FoxConn has a gross margin of 2.8% (previously 6.6% before the suicide workers scandal) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-31/hon-hai-foxconn-international-tumble-after-earnings.html, while Apple has a margin of 41% http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=AAPL, because Foxconn has control of manufacturing and therefore has all the power.

Having this power, FoxConn can "lock" Apple out of its factories and Apple will do absolutely nothing instead of shifting production to any number of interchangable factories not just in China but anywhere in the world. And of course, since FoxConn has all the power, if they end their partnership with Apple they will be able to sell fake Apple products because they will magically have the Apple brand and distribution channels in the West (which is still where a great deal of the money is). And using their enormous leverage of selling products at a 2% margin FoxConn will be able to attract the engineering and design talent that will come up with the next product that will render current Apple products completely obsolete.

Get over yourself. Manufacturers in China have no power unless they are actually able to sell their products for a reasonable profit, and they have even less power because they are competing in a commodity market where one manufacturer is no better than the other and only have direct access to the Chinese marketplace (which has nowhere near the amount of money as the West). Companies in the developed world, on the other hand, have direct access to rich consumers and can draw on talent not just from the advanced nations but anywhere in the world. And this will remain so, as long as the companies in the West stay ahead do not become complacent (like the American auto industry in the 80's). If the Chinese do catch up, then all the better, competition is always good. Witness how the rise of Japan, Taiwan and Korea has made electronics much, much better during the 80's and 90's.

Re:If you "own" intellectual property

[losfromla]

you had to pick that particular brand though for your argument to have any chance at being credible. Most brands are not Apple. Most computers are as interchangeable as tube socks, so are TVs, Computer Monitors, floaties, rebar, screws, etc. Thus many chinese manufacturers are entering the US market with their little known brands and very sophisticated products, its easy when you're already producing something to slap your own brand on it. What informed consumer wouldn't choose the identical product which is much cheaper due to not being burdened by R&D, advertising, stockholders...? I say screw these stupid multinationals, let their products get copied and sold in the western markets, they didn't care about our jobs, why should we care about their IP?

Not us!

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew a fellow that was an engineer working for Siemens in China on HSR and he had some wonderful stories about how their computers grew legs while working in China.

Apparently, from what I remember, the Siemens folks would return to work in the morning and all of the computer cables (monitor, keyboard, power, etc...) would be disconnected from the machines. Sometimes the computers would just pile into a group inside the office. They changed the locks to the office, locked down cpus, etc... but without fail the machines just moved on their own. Unable to get any useful response from their Chinese contacts they set up a camera and found it was the folks they were working on the project with who were taking the computers. When confronted with the evidence, the response was a merely 'Not Us!' And business continued as if none of this was happening.

Re:Not us!

[shadowofwind]

I've noticed a tendency of most people to define ethics in a way that gives their own group an edge, and using that standard to measure everyone else's behavior. For example, black people 'steal' at a higher rate than white people, but white people actually steal vastly more wealth, they just do it through white collar tricks that they don't consider stealing. For example, they get money for R&D that never pans out, and which they could have known from the outset would never pan out, but they didn't ask the relevant questions because they didn't want to endanger the flow of money. Then they pretend that's just how R&D is. Or, the let their money "work for them" in the stock market, and pretend that they deserve high returns because their money is making the economy more efficient. They ignore the dynamics where they're getting richer because someone else in a less advantageous position is seeing their savings evaporate through inflationary effects that they can't protect themselves against.

So yes, Chinese people are dishonest, and have some other traits that are even worse, as well as virtues that compare favorably to Europeans. But in the graduate school I went to, all the Americans except myself were cheating, and professionally most of the Americans I've worked with have effectively been stealing. So I'm tired of hearing how corrupt other peoples are when our own culture is destroying itself. We are the reason our economy has been going down the shithole, its not the immigrants.

Re:Not us!

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Mod parent up.

Racism still exists. Face it.

Re:Not us!

[Antisyzygy]

I don't disagree with the white collar crime problem. That's not just white people. That is Americans. Jews, Italians, Anglo-Saxons, even Black People. Hell, I have little respect for most MBA or Finance majors, as they all have some weird sense of entitlement from their degrees. Like they should get paid to capitalize on other people's efforts. In fact, many rich kids around here pay other people to do their essays and help them otherwise cheat. Most modern business majors also have no concept of sustainable profits and wealth creation. They just snipe wealth from other sectors of the market without actually producing anything. Im just saying, the Chinese are bleeding us dry with their completely unfair tactics. They want to participate in a Capitalist market but refuse to play by the rules. Its the other asshats (white collar people) that made our dependency so damn high on them. Short term profits, no long term sustainability.

Re:Not us!

[shadowofwind]

OK. But here's some other considerations to throw into the mix. Half the population of China is impoverished, and somehow they've got to grow the economy fast enough to ward off social disasters that loom on the horizon. They're supposed to follow monetary principles that are designed for developed western economies, or else they're being completely unfair? Most of us are way better off than most of them are. And if you look at history, their lack of development is not exclusively the result of their own corruption. There has also been tremendously destructive meddling by foreign powers, way worse in important regards than what anyone is doing to us now. Militarily forcing them to allow opium trade would be one example. That was in the past, but the Chinese are still dealing with the effects now. Historically China has not been a backwards country, relatively speaking, it has only been for the past few hundred years that they've been struggling.

Likewise with our democratic ideals. Another culture can not impose a foreign political system on themselves and expect it to work. These things have to develop organically over time. The intolerance and corruption that is present in the Chinese ruling class runs deep in Chinese psychology. They can't change who they are by just snapping their fingers, and their authoritarian government reflects who they are at present. But in some regards they are already better than us also, freer even. Which country is it, for example, where you can't cut someone's hair without a license? Which country is it where intellectual property rackets make it practically impossible for small companies to innovate?

Despite the problems and conflicts, there are also deep affinities between China and the US. This is one reason the two countries have generally gotten along well, despite the wars in Korea and Vietnam. For the most part, Chinese people like Americans, and in a lot of ways they think like we do. I think its a mistake to focus too much on the differences. America and western Europe have dominated the world's economy for a long time. Let the rest of the world catch up.

All of these principles apply to individuals also. Earlier I said lots of nasty things about white collar Americans. And in the past I've criticized China's monetary policy, even though I've described the other side of the picture here. Which is more of a problem, American cultural corruption, or my moral arrogance and anger? In my own way I'm just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Maybe it helps a little for me to describe what I know about China and America, since I have a lot of Chinese friends and relatives, and I've worked in segments of the American economy that other people may know less about. But mostly I think I just need to reign in my own bullshit. Some people call this "liberal guilt", and in another context they call it "blame America first". But it doesn't seem very productive to me to focus too much on stuff that we only half understand and can't change, while ignoring what we're immediately responsible for.

Re:Not us!

[DriedClexler]

Uh, wait, so shoplifting is morally equivalent to buying a portfolio of voting rights in productive enterprises (that those enterprises knowingly issued for that purpose) and to failing to speak up soon enough about your negative estimate of R&D success?

No. Just ... just, no. That is about fifty different kinds of wrong.

Re:Not us!

[shadowofwind]

Uh, wait, so shoplifting is morally equivalent to buying a portfolio of voting rights in productive enterprises

The people running those enterprises commonly steer them in directions that are less productive for the sake of short term stock market gains. Its a neat trick, because management says its being responsible to shareholders, and shareholders are just investing their money. Nobody accepts responsibility for tearing the company down. Many, many productive and profitable companies have been ruined in this manner.

Yes investment in the stock market also serves a useful and necessary purpose. But its dishonest to bury the destructive aspects of stock trade in the constructive aspects and pretend that only the latter are real. And its not entirely unavoidable, there's ways that laws and behavior could be changed that would make things better.

In the context of R&D, I'm talking about misrepresenting the state of development work for the sake of obtaining and continuing to obtain funding. Its misrepresentation by omission rather than by fabrication, and its pervasive.

As I have posted elsewhere, I was arrested and briefly jailed a few years ago because somebody thought, incorrectly, that I had stolen building supplies that they valued at $60. Yet I knowingly enabled the squandering of well over $1M of public money, and nobody who knows the details of what I did has any problem with it. Yes, its worse than shoplifting. And the destruction wrought by our "casino economics" (to borrow a phrase from The Economist), far, far exceeds the harm done by shoplifting.

Re:Not us!

[shadowofwind]

"casino economics" (to borrow a phrase from The Economist)

"casino capitalism" rather

Re:Not us!

[DriedClexler]

Sorry, you stopped short of the part where you carefully explained how any of this makes the *buyer of the stock* a criminal in the sense that a shoplifter is, and where the justifications given for both are equally invalid rationalizations of knowingly immoral behavior.

Re:Not us!

[shadowofwind]

OK. Are you interested, or is your mind made up from the outset, so that trying to explain myself better is a pointless excercise? I'm trying to finish other stuff this evening.

I buy stock, and I have no problem with other people buying stock. There isn't any other way to protect ourselves against inflation brought about by excessive government borrowing. And companies do need to raise capital somehow, which may at one time have been a larger function of the stock market than it is now.

Do you care about what the managers of a company do to increase the stock value, or do you look solely at your expected profit? If the latter, then you're culpable, because you're actions help select for amoral managers.

Do you care about what tax and market laws can maximize the vitality of industry, or do you lobby for laws that maximize the value of your portfolio? If the latter, then you're culpable.

Money isn't magic. If you're getting richer, do you care about fully understanding how that is happening, and what your responsibilities are, or do you just embrace whatever ideology seems to justify your earnings? If the latter, then you're culpable.

Shoplifting is a crime against the shop owner, and against everyone else who pays for things instead of stealing. It robs them of something value which they earned or built. Its also a crime against order. There are other and more fundamental kinds of order than written law however, even though it is one important kind. It is not the most important kind. Many kinds of horrible things are legal in some other countries, and often it has been recognizing the inherent immorality of those things that has inspired people to make them illegal here.

Whole sections of the American economy have almost completely vanished in recent decades, and its not all a matter of wage competition, greed on the part of labor unions, and over-regulation. The orientation of our society towards speculative investment has been a huge part of it. If you're an enthusiastic participant, then you're culpable. If you see some of the damage, in terms of what it does to honest people who are forced into personally destructive jobs to support their families, with most of the fruits of their labors going to other people, then I don't see how you can argue that profit-focused speculative investment is not at least on par with shoplifting. I don't know you, so I could be wrong, but if you haven't seen it at all, then I have to suspect you don't really care and I'm wasting my time trying to explain it.

Re:Not us!

[sznupi]

And, in the name of fairness, you advocate willingly relinquishing our position / dismantling any lead we may have, right?... (what, do you think it was achieved via "playing by the rules"?)

Re:Not us!

[sznupi]

These things have to develop organically over time ... They can't change who they are by just snapping their fingers, and their authoritarian government reflects who they are at present

Do not be afraid of saying this more directly ;) - most people are ultimately comfortable with their worldview (even scary one) / will remain mostly faithful to it / need to largely be...supplanted. Also need to die out, for the world to move forward, to improve. We will need too, relatively soon.

State of next generation will show best where the societies choose to take themselves.

(and who knows what's in for China, for example partly due to one child policy and gender imbalance)

High Speed Tail

[digitaldc]

I say any innovation in mass transit that takes cars and trucks off the road is totally fine by me.

Well, nazi "scientists"

[SmallFurryCreature]

And it worked so well, the Russians were first. They just tortured them, then killed them. Works a lot better and doesn't rot the soul.

Re:Fast women?

[VortexCortex]

He cited China's ability, the world's first, to build high-speed tail in high mountain area...

Wham, Bam, Thank You Tram.

Isn't everyone aware this is how it works?

[guidryp]

You have to be naive, to be under some kind of illusion that this wouldn't happen.

China desperately want foreign technology and if you want access to their market, you must set up joint ventures and share technology. Once the technology has been captured they will launch their native industry, with your technology, and compete with you.

This has happened repeatedly, yet our brilliant western capitalists fall for it, over and over. A few quarters of higher stock prices and bigger bonuses to pad their pockets today, while a new competitor undercutting them tomorrow is someone elses problem.

Re:Isn't everyone aware this is how it works?

[517714]

You have to be naive, to be under some kind of illusion that this wouldn't happen.

Naivete and denial are not the same. As for the corporations, neither term applies - if it makes the bottom line look better in the next two quarters, it is a no-brainer. These no-brain decisions have become the staple of American business.

Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese built the American rail system, it's only fitting they now build their own. I for one applaud them.

Re:Good for them

[grumpyman]

Exploitation of cheap labor - what comes around goes around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American_history#Transcontinental_railroad

For the Central Pacific Railroad, hiring Chinese as opposed to whites kept labor costs down by a third, since the company would not pay their board or lodging. This type of steep wage inequality was commonplace at the time.[30] Eventually Crocker overcame shortages of manpower and money by hiring Chinese immigrants to do much of the back-breaking and dangerous labor. He drove the workers to the point of exhaustion, in the process setting records for laying track and finishing the project seven years ahead of the government's deadline.[35]

Intelectual Property value

[NapalmV]

So how can we express in dollars and cents the value of a certain "intellectual property" asset? Because until we can do that no one can decide if China paid fair price or not on the "technology transfer". Is it "the market value"? If yes, then they sold it at market price ("whatever the buyer can bear"). Or is it that new rule of "as much as we can get by suing for infringements"? RIAA and MPAA have paved the way, but how exactly can you sue the Chinese?

Re:Have they ever been caught doing HONEST busines

[Life2Short]

In defense of the Chinese who found themselves trading with 19th century Europeans, that might be expected when you force one party to trade at gunpoint.

Yes. those countries should suck up.

[unity100]

There was a lot of 'know-how' and 'technology transfer' fad, when the cold war ended. Needing markets and clients, a lot of sectors were doing agreements of technology transfer with the client countries, doing some technology transfer and teaching them how to use and develop the technologies that were being employed, in return for getting the contract. In fact, this was the dominant pattern in defense industry in between 1990-2000.

it was all giddy when they were getting all those contracts, and now, with the advent of the 'ip/patent' fad in usa, it all turned upside down ?

well excuse me, you cant just agree to a tech transfer as a part of a contract, and then just chicken out when you feel you should be making even more money by patent trolling with it. in the strictest and most polite of the term ; suck it up.

now now ...

[unity100]

No need to visit China - just to Appalachia (like west virginia).

your example is way too specific. it sounds like a first hand experience.

Re:now now ...

[bidule]

No need to visit China - just to Appalachia (like west virginia).

your example is way too specific. it sounds like a first hand experience.

Right hand or left hand?

no

[unity100]

he means where you brought over those german nazis, who have presided over factories in which slave labor was employed to the point of death, gave them jobs, citizenship, and a chance to ........ well not exactly continue the practice of slave labor, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#Slave_labor

just like how you have employed ex gestapo as an anti-eastern bloc spy net during cold war, leading to the impeccable shit cia and similar organizations perpetrated, thanks to their influence in their ranks.

well

[unity100]

you have lived off of others' souls, while maintaining that american dream of yours, thanks to the colonial empire you built over blood.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

Re:well

[circletimessquare]

so it's about revenge? ok

revenge excuses crimes by one party, because they are done in retribution against the crimes of another party? ok

but it doesn't really work that way in real life. for example, china is committing plenty of crimes in africa now, and south america, and against its own people

so then in some future world, some jackwad like you will post on a chinese bulletin board to the powers in beijing as they lose their grasp on power: "you have lived off of others' souls, while maintaining that chinese empire of yours, thanks to the capitalism you built over blood and slavery."

and then someone else commits revenge

etc., etc., etc. endless cycle of revenge

my point is simple: revenge begets revenge, begets revenge, endlessly

so revenge doesn't work

what you want is: justice. and in your words is no justice at all, but only malevolence

and therefore, you, yourself, think just as villanously as the american villany you perceive

want to know how dick cheney thinks? look in the mirror. in your words, is the same venom

Re:well

[unity100]

its not about 'revenge'. its about practical reality.

your country have mooched off of the resources of the world, by making it into a dominion, installing puppet dictators to repress the people for its own benefit, and even setting up super-secret organizations to do very filthy shit in 1st world countries in order to protect its 'interests'.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gladio&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

so, usa has been living the 'american dream' at the cost of people's lives and freedoms around the world. and it didnt pay a single dime for it, if you dont count repression by petty dictators, or assassinations as payment. and now, you come up complaining, talking about rights, paying back etc ?

if you talk about 'justice' one would expect all the generations that grew up living the 'american dream' to pay back to the world.

maybe thats exactly what they are doing, with all that outsourcing, offshoring their jobs. karma alleviation eh ...

not to mention that, china has bought that technology transfer with the deal they made 20 years ago.

Re:well

[circletimessquare]

LOL

you don't have to like the usa friend, that's perfectly reasonable and within your rights

but it's just humorous to see you make the complaints you do, when china is guilty of the same crimes, as well as plenty of other countries. that doesn't excuse the usa, but it does put your venom against the usa in the proper light: you are not motivated by principals

do you consider yourself a principled person? good. then apply your principles to anyone who offends those principles

or, continue to hate the usa uniquely. that's ok by me. then just admit you have an anti-american prejudice. which again, is ok, plenty of people do, even a lot of americans

but at least you should admit what you are

because currently, you don't operate on principals, you operate on tribalism and vendettas, which means you are of the same dimwitted nationalist chest thumping that you are complaining about and that creates all of the crimes that bothers you

Re:well

[unity100]

but it's just humorous to see you make the complaints you do, when china is guilty of the same crimes, as well as plenty of other countries. that doesn't excuse the usa, but it does put your venom against the usa in the proper light: you are not motivated by principals

you need to brush up on your history. china has been able to repress its citizens, and a few countries around it. eastern bloc, was confined to eastern europe and russia.

usa, on the other hand, has held an uncontested dominion through dozens of puppet dictators in the rest of the world. all the while touting to protect democracy and freedom. and, somehow, citizens of usa were able to melt pursuit of spreading democracy and freedom and the puppet dictators, in the same pot ....

im not 'complaining' by the way. there is nothing to complain. we are not in cold war, u.s. no longer 'is', it is practically owned by china, and the rest of the world has already taken over. ... im just pointing to your hypocrisy.

or, continue to hate the usa uniquely. that's ok by me. then just admit you have an anti-american prejudice. which again, is ok, plenty of people do, even a lot of americans

i dont have any qualms from directly declaring something i feel or do. had i hated usa, i would have said that, i hated usa.

one thing im saying is, however, i hate hypocrisy.

Re:well

[circletimessquare]

go ahead, hate hypocrisy. there's plenty of hypocrisy in the usa's words and actions

but if you think china, as an autocratic and capitalist empire, is going to exhibit any improvement over the behavior of the usa in the world, you are a fool

you, your children, or your grandchildren, will be practically nostalgic for the usa, when they live in the age of chinese dominance

we aren't talking about a democracy friend, we aren't talking about a country with democratic principles. there is no respect for the individual, there is no rule by consensus. it is command and control

if china were to adopt democratic principles, i would be the first to embrace china and celebrate china's rise. but if china doesn't, it's not going to be a pretty world with a nondemocracy being the most powerful entity in it, and you know that to be true

Re:well

[unity100]

there wont be any chinese empire. chinese is just contributing to u.s. downfall. there will be 3 focuses - eu, russia and china. with india probably being the 4th, minor.

Re:well

[circletimessquare]

you're an idiot

that's exactly the way things are now, moron, with the usa and brazil on the list

Re:well

[unity100]

yeeees. and finally, you come around to show what's truly inside you then. and it turns out to be exemplary, unquestionable, unfathomable logic manifesting in embodiment of the words 'idiot','moron' etc.

its ironic that 50% of any discussion with an american ends up with them talking shit in the end, at their wits' end. ironically they coincide with the right wing lot.

have a nice day, mr. smart person, who can explain an infinity in the words 'moron' and 'idiot'. ah - and next time, shut up, and dont talk, so people can actually mistake you for someone decent.

Re:well

[unity100]

if you act similarly as a group, people lump you altogether into a single group and identify you as thus. if you want to be taken as an individual, ACT like an individual, and dont exhibit the same characteristics like the half of your country's population. see, again :

finally, you are a moron, based on your precedigin comment. low iq, ignorant. stupid

you cant even fucking talk properly or decently.

Re:well

[circletimessquare]

LOL

either you are effectively trolling me or you are genuinely a humongous hypocrite

"if you act similarly as a group"

this is called racism, tribalism, nationalism. it is at the root of everything you hate about the usa. it is also not unique to the usa. what i say and do is radically different from what another american would say. he or she might sound like you. and in your own nationality, you will find people acting like me. in other words, with every word, you are simply revealing yourself to be, exactly what you say you hate

you are either that colossally stupid and hypocritical, or you are just trolling the hell about of me. either way: good job retard!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

Re:well

[unity100]

have a nice day.

Re:well

[circletimessquare]

drop dead, prejudiced tribal chest thumper

hate america and americans all you want. just know that the reasons you give for doing so, you should hate yourself just as well, since you behave according to the same reasons you give for hating americans. your hypocrisy is enormous

Re:High-speed tail?

[fishexe]

...high-speed tail...

I want some of that.

It's available in lots of countries, but only China can provide it in high mountain areas.

Hi-larious!

[Medievalist]

Have the Chinese demanded back payments for the IP in gunpowder and noodles yet?

I understand that guy Marco Polo owes them some money, too.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity...
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Re:Hi-larious!

[countSudoku()]

Even more funny; the FBI busted the guy who stole plans from Ford to sell to Beijing Automotive. Innovation? And lest we not forget the many attempts to get nuclear info back to mainland China. China is the greatest Me Too country there is... when they get to the moon they're going to have a huge video blackout while they try to come up with "innovative" ways of explaining why there's already an America Flag there.

Neither my daughter or I will ever need to learn Chinese. I guarantee this.

Not us either

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

I have never met nor heard of a more dishonest group than Indians. They cheat in all of my classes and get away with it because most of us do not speak Hindi. My professors have caught a couple different groups of them copying each others work on several occasions. Homework and tests that is. Pair this with how often you hear lies and obfuscation of truth from their ruling class, and how often Indians come over with H-1B visas and steal American jobs. People from India just know how to copy and paste, fake resumes, and scratch their feet on their job. You will never see a single Indian work for their paycheck. All they want is to show up and get the check. Having class projects with Indians was the worst experience I ever had. I don't think all Indians are bad, girls actually work very hard, but for the guys, their actions are certainly shady. I think they probably are more honest and fair when amongst their own people but they show contempt for the rest of us.

Re:Not us either

[Antisyzygy]

I have met more honest and hard working Indians than Chinese. Most of them are very intelligent transplants to the University system and major in sciences or medical fields. There are so few Americans in these fields these days because Americans only care about getting the easiest degree they can that they believe will pay them to do nothing (Like MBAs). Not to mention they don't do any one of the things you mentioned. I don't hate Chinese people, I don't hate any one race or culture. Its either a extremely strange coincidence that the majority of Chinese I have met have been dirt bags, or more often than not they have contempt for the western world and its rules. The fact you call racism whenever someone notices a pattern amongst another race is a double standard. The Chinese people are showing racism towards us with their contempt for us. I hate even calling differences in people "races" as we are all the same species with minor variations. However, culturally at least, the Chinese people I have met try to participate in a system they choose to not follow the rules thereof. This goes for Capitalism as well as the University system.

Re:Not us either

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

it all depends where they come from. American-born / second generation Chinese/Indians are a much better crowd. The ones that came over to attend graduate school is very bad.

Re:Have they ever been caught doing HONEST busines

[carlhaagen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you thinking backwards here? According to this supposed trade compendium, which by OP's details account for logs UP UNTIL the 19th century, exactly how is this in the defense of the Chinese when the European "gunpoint trade" you mention took place DURING the 19th century - after the end of this compendium?

If anything, this seems to just strengthen and inadvertently prove the points of this compendium that OP wanted to bring forth, by appearing as consequential actions taken by Europeans as a result of suffering dishonesty in trade.

The sound of history repeating

[ThatsNotPudding]

"11/22/2010 - CFM International, a 50/50 joint venture between General Electric Co (GE - Analyst Report) and French company Snecma, has obtained contracts worth $2.1 billion for supply of engines and services to Air China, China Eastern Airlines and the HNA Group." http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/43662/GE+Wins+China+Aviation+Deals

Japan, Taiwan, and Korea

[circletimessquare]

are democracies. we aren't enriching a democracy with china, we are contributing to the rising power of an autocracy. if china were a democracy, i would celebrate this rise. and if china became democratic, i would cheer china's rise

but if what in power in beijing is all command and control, no respect for the individual, no rule by consensus, no tolerance of dissent, no freedom of political expression, then i fear we are feeding a beast that will only hurt us in the future

Re:Have they ever been caught doing HONEST busines

[Life2Short]

OP said the logs went up to 1900. Opium wars were 1839 - 1860. The 19th century was 1801 - 1900. Perhaps you were thinking 19th century was 1901 - 2000? I would also suggest that the opium wars were the head of a long-term attitude on both sides. The Chinese weren't interested in European trade. The Europeans had nothing the Chinese wanted. On the other hand, the Europeans were desperate for Chinese goods.