Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Intellectual Property Acquisition Tactics Exposed
hackingbear writes "In an interview published in Sina.com.cn, Chinese rail engineers gave a detailed account of the history, motivation, and technologies behind the Chinese high-speed rail system. More interestingly, they blatantly revealed the strategies and tactics used in acquiring high-speed rail tech from foreign companies (Google translation of Chinese original). At the beginning, China developed its own high-speed rail system known as the Chinese Star, which achieved a test speed of 320km/h; but the system was not considered reliable or stable enough for operation. So China decided to import the technologies. The leaders instructed, 'The goal of the project is to boost our economy, not theirs.' A key strategy employed is divide-and-conquer: by dividing up the technologies of the system and importing multiple different technologies across different companies, it ensures no single country or company has total control. 'What we do is to exchange market for technologies. The negotiation was led by the Ministry of Railway [against industry alliances of the exporting countries]. This uniform executive power gave China huge advantage in negotiations,' said Wu Junrong, 'If we don't give in, they have no choice. They all want a piece of our huge high speed rail project.' For example, [Chinese locomotive train] CRH2 is based on Japanese tech, CRH3 on German tech, and CRH5 on French tech, all retrofit for Chinese rail standards. Another strategy is buy-to-build. The first three trains were imported as a whole; the second three were assembled with imported parts; subsequent trains contain more and more Chinese made parts."
This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.
The story is not that the Chinese are devious, acquisitive SOB's. It's that the west continues to be stupid enough to enable them. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646472655698844.html Frist post!
an ill wind that blows no good
Well this is the difference between a state that has long term goals of improving it countries vs. corporations that can't see beyond the next quarterly report. Maybe it is true what they say, a capitalist will sell you the rope that you will use to hang him.
Think of it like european scholars rediscovering ancient works from the muslims and eventually doing their own major works again.
I worked for a high tech company where the Chinese just seized the imported equipment outright and stopped payments. No doubt everything was duplicated and what software wasn't already transferred was reverse engineered. Posting anon...
You're looking at the whole thing from the wrong angle. The CEO won't care what happens to the company 10 years down the line. By then he'll have taken his golden parachute and cashed in his stock options.
The only thing that matters is the next few bottom lines. So the answer is to get as much money NOW, then run away before the shit hits the fan.
intellectual property IS a joke. as you can see, the chinese have proven to you what a joke it is. the way to fight the chinese is to only do business with them and only allow their business into your country, as long as their business abides by certain standards, such as worker's rights. supporting intellectual property is not an effective strategy
furthermore, intellectual property is a concept that the chinese will just as happily wield against those in the west when their power is entrenched enough. the very idea of intellectual property is exactly the sort of anti-capitalist rent seeking monopolistic practices autocratic corporations like the chinese government engage in, that should be opposed, in the NAME OF capitalism and free markets
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Also one reason that large corporations dominate more and more is because the barrier in many fields are very high. For example, nobody can start a petro or pharmaceutical companies easily without billion dollars of investments to meet all the safety and quality requirements. There are actually large number of small businesses in China now, resulting in intense competition and quality problem. People, with consumerist minds, don't understand that high safety, environmental and quality standard tend to cause consolidation of suppliers and resulting corporations will have more control over the market. They will complain one way or the other.
It is more than just savvy business wheeling and dealing, since it's the Chinese government wheeling and dealing. Which means it's a monopoly: only the government agency can negotiate for that business inside China. And only the specific Chinese corps the government picks can get the business. Those picked corps are picked not necessarily for the best interests of China, but rather for whatever is in the best interest of the government officials with the power to pick them. Which might or might not be the best interests of China. That's Communism.
But it's also industrial policy, which is indeed savvy business wheeling and dealing. The US doesn't have anything like that, except for the corruption part where some industries have orgs that lobby our government to do business with foreign governments that require their government to mediate such international trade, or where the US government does occasionally require our government to play that role in foreign trade, where the orgs use some method other than competitive bids/RFPs to pick which members get the business. The US could have an industrial policy as effective in strategy as China's extreme one, but without requiring the government to actually conduct the negotiations. Just review the completed deals to ensure they comply with the policy, perhaps just random samples plus any over a large value threshold (which would pay in taxes enough to fund the review).
Instead, the US abandons industrial policy, and therefore industrial strategy. And watches China ascend at our expense. Though the top US capitalists have already invested in China's industries, so China's gain is their gain, while they've divested from US liabilities, so our expense is not theirs.
--
make install -not war
That couldn't happen, it's bribery by a foreign power! It would be just like President Ford getting a large donation for the Republican Party in person in Jakarta on the day Indonesia invaded East Timor, and the USA reversing their policy on East Timor on that day, even calling them (the same party that runs East Timor today) Communists! Oh wait. When the papers were released in 2005 we found out that was EXACTLY what happened.
Time to start learning Mandarin.
Well everyone in the 1980s thought Japan would rule the world and own everything but internal problems proved that there were limits to their power... just as any nation has limits. We in the US often forget our own limitations because we're used to having our own way.
China has severe internal issues; a massive property bubble that makes the US housing crisis seem tame by comparison; local governments are addicted to land sales to fund their massive infrastructure projects, loaded down with loans from the state banks. Unless you truly believe that empty apartment blocks or even empty cities are a good investment and property prices will always go up that game has to end at some point and when it does China won't be able to hide the pain. Plus massive corruption and cheating (how can you make decisions at the top when all your stats are based on outright falsified data?). Official government statistics say that about 40% of the academic papers published from Chinese Universities contain falsified research and that's just what they will admit.
Did I also mention the leadership/succession problem? How many times in world history has some political succession BS thrown a wrench into a country's previously bright future?
I'll put it another way: if China gets too annoying and the EU+US slap a 50% tariff on Chinese imports who do you think will blink first? The consumers who have to pay $5.99 for that plastic toy instead of $2.99? Or the communist authorities in China facing millions of unemployed laborers with no job prospects, nowhere to go, and nothing to do? The political situation in China is far less straightforward and stable than people suppose.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
The laws at the central level are indeed improving (slowly), but there is pretty much no change for property owners who see much of their compensation pocketed by local government officials. My girlfriend's family is one such case. They agreed to a 500000RMB deal for their parcel and house on the city outskirts, but the local department in charge of distributing compensation would only release 200000RMB, less than half, telling them 200k is "enough" and that they "shouldn't be greedy", even though the department in charge of development made the deal for 500k. They have no recourse since there's no such thing as suing the government. The only way they could hope to get full compensation is if they had connections with higher level government officials (county or province level) who have the power to indict their subordinates. As to where the rest of the money went, you can take a look at party officials cruising around in Audi A8s and guess.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I've been debating this with myself for a long time and I've come to the following (admittedly infantile) conclusion:
Capitalism - Getting capital by providing a good or service.
Corporatism - Getting capital without ever providing anything.
Native speaker here also. It's in the 3rd paragraph in the 2nd section after the introduction titled "Open the door or close it?" The preceding context is "the decision to import foreign rail technology had already been made." The next sentence can be translated as "the intimations of the higher ups is that 'the development of the project should promote our economy, rather than promote their economy' and [those involved] should act upon considerations that are advantageous to China when acquiring these technologies."
The way it's worded doesn't cast those "higher ups" in a bad light (considering every country would prioritize their own economy), but I think it's not entirely unreasonable to also read that as an implicit request to achieve a balance in maximizing Chinese economic benefits while minimizing foreign economic benefits -- that would be the way I'd understand it if I were a shrewed political underling.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
No, what happens is that China buys the first 5 loco's for 5M/piece and as they progressed they kept paying the same money for less stuff. In the end they just paid 20M or so for all the licenses and tech expertise and the GE manager that made the deal got a promotion because he had a series of VERY good financial end-of-quarter reports.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Ridiculous. The negative side of China's rise to power is not the color of their skin, but the dismissal of human rights by their federal government.
> this is the difference between a state that has long term goals of improving it countr[y] vs.
> corporations that can't see beyond the next quarterly report.
***China is an elephant that can fly!***
This planet has never seen such an _economic_ rise, not post WWII Europe, not even 20th century USA with its post-war advantage of a devastated first world manufacturing base whilst its own plant was ascendant.
The USA's economic orthodoxy is that attenuated (save Tea Party, Rep. Ron Paul, right wing Republicans) laissez faire, minimal market regulation, minimal market interference, no industrial policy will lead to maximum national economic gains. Since Deng Xiaoping's 1972 market/China opening China has amalgamated Japan's MITI approach (industrial policy) with the West's form of capitalism. In essence they are _demonstrating_ that there is more than one form of capitalism. And their form kicks ass, to the chagrin of western economists and politicos. These Chinese market tactics are if not identical wholly descendant from 1980's Japan Golden Age[1].
BTW, contrary to your quote above, Japan is an economy legendary for putting the long term above ALL ELSE. Yet since 1990 Japan has been in an economic depression that shattered the once indomitable, invulnerable, invincible myth that once was a nation of "Samurai businessmen." I frankly am very surprised at how low Japan's business savvy has sunk. Once upon a time called the 1980s, Japan would do the same sort of thing as in the OP, it would diversify its supply of commodities (1.) to eliminate supplier supremacy and (2.) to achieve lower prices and (3.) gain influence. So, if it needed iron ore, copper ore, petroleum, aluminium, whatever it would set rival nation suppliers against one another---say, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile, the USA! whomever---for fractional supply quantities. Thusly, low economies of scale would lead to higher cost for Japan, initially, but no one supplier had a stranglehold on Japan. Two, Eventually suppliers would plead for bigger market shares with lower prices for the booming Japanese economy. Three, nations would enact laws beneficial to Japan, nations' indigenous corporations would lobby their governments for infrastructure projects in an effort to ingratiate themselves for future Japanese business or to supply the commodities needed for said infrastructure projects, etc. But now I see that Japan, like the rest of teh globe is a decade away from weaning themselves away from and is presently on bended knee kowtowing to China for rare earth exports. THAT! gentlemen would never have happened to the 1980s Japan. The master is getting tutored!
So I remind you that ***China is an elephant that can fly!***
The planet has never seen a nation rise from so low ECONOMICALLY to so high. Mind you the Middle Kingdom (China) is a nation of deep cultural depth. Reaching back millenia! They are not they were not ignorant not last century, not two three centuries ago either. Think of the Communist Party as the last in a succession of Emperors. China has had them all along its history, some have lasted centuries, some have lasted fifty to ninety years, some have not even been Chinese but barbarian. The communist nation is only sixty-two years old. Their modern ascendancy is thirty-nine years old. Will it last? Will it keep flying? Will the Chinese subsume their liberty to the Party for another sixty-two or thirty-nine years? Even Japan looked unstoppable. Once. It makes an omelet out of our American, western, libertarian, Tea Party, Austrian Economic school orthodoxy.
[1] "Dogs and Demons: tales for the dark side of Japan", Alex Kerr, 2001. A never seen analysis (by a long time nipponophile) in the western press on the cultural, economic, spiritual, ecological malaise of Japan.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The funny thing is that the Chinese government already considers itself in a competitive "war" with you, and has done for several decades. They will do whatever it takes to "win", primarily for nationalistic reasons (they certainly don't do it for the ordinary citizen, although it is sold as that). Just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean they weren't thinking in those terms. This is quite different to the US where the government funds innovation itself rather than a systematic program of stealing (corporations are trans-national and another thing entirely).
Whatever fault and atrocity US may have committed, anyone in the world is free to criticize and any US resident is free to discuss and lobby for change. The same cannot be said for China and that is fundamental difference between China and the rest of the free world.
I disagree strong with the Patriot Act, the use of torture and the Iraq War, but even I know that those actions pale in comparison to the tens of millions if not hundred of millions of Chinese that perished in the last 50 years due to the ineptness of an authoritarian regime.
While China certainly has achieve spectacular economic growth in the last 50 years, but I would argue that the US civil rights movement that continues today has far more importance than avoiding starvation.