Slashdot Mirror


Judge Rules Against China In 'Green Dam' Suit

An anonymous reader writes "About a year after Cybersitter sued the Chinese government and several Asian OEMs for allegedly copying its code to create the 'Green Dam' software, a US federal judge has allowed the $2.3 billion suit to proceed. Judge Josephine Staton Tucker, a California district judge, entered a judgement of default against the People's Republic of China on Wednesday, after PRC officials failed to respond to the ruling. Although the PRC's embassy sent a letter to the US State Department protesting Cybersitter's suit, such a letter did not qualify as a formal response."

152 comments

  1. A drop in the pond... by daitengu · · Score: 1

    I wonder if we can knock $2.3b off our debt to China, then?

    1. Re:A drop in the pond... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The absurdity of claiming $2.3B in any copyright suit aside...

      It would be hilarious if we reneged on our foreign debts by using RIAA math to value the IP "stolen" from the US in the trillions, and seize foreign capital as "compensation."

      This does happen in the case of tangible assets such as oil, so I guess the fact we don't do the same for intellectual property is a tacit admission of some distinction between them vs other types of property.

    2. Re:A drop in the pond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so hilarious it would start a nuclear war..

    3. Re:A drop in the pond... by Flyerman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know about that. China declared the software added and licensed to every new computer in the country, and their population is 1,331,460,000 according to The Google. So the suit is really a lot less than what China would pay if instead of copyrighted code, it was a pirated song.

    4. Re:A drop in the pond... by icebike · · Score: 2

      Yeah, right, China doesn't get paid so it decides to commit suicide instead.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:A drop in the pond... by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      I love that stuff with Chavez. We WILL sieze the refinery and other equipment to compensate for the stolen platforms. But what is funny about that, is that Chavez can only sell that oil to America at this time. This man really knows how to screw himself.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:A drop in the pond... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      The absurdity of claiming $2.3B in any copyright suit aside...

      It would be hilarious if we reneged on our foreign debts by using RIAA math to value the IP "stolen" from the US in the trillions, and seize foreign capital as "compensation."

      This does happen in the case of tangible assets such as oil, so I guess the fact we don't do the same for intellectual property is a tacit admission of some distinction between them vs other types of property.

      Hilarious? If China didn't hold the upper hand so completely perhaps. Currently though, all China has to do is put all it's US gov bonds on the market at once to plunge the USA into a depression like it's never seen before. It won't do that however as long as the US is buying Chinese products - protecting China's export economy. That's the only reason China has kept the US going.

      With the power that China currently has over the US though, it was nice of them to even send a letter. I don't think that the USA is in any position to be threatening anything.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    7. Re:A drop in the pond... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      If a US court had any rights to judge over what happened on foreign soil, perhaps. It doesn't. It's a stupid case and a waste of money on the side of the plaintiff. China was kind enough to actually acknowledge it with a letter. It needn't have.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    8. Re:A drop in the pond... by alienzed · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't happen because it's not money stolen from the US, but corporations, or property stolen by the same entities the US is indebted to in the first place. It'd be like me demanding a free burger at McDonalds because I forgot to take my change from Burger King last week.

      --
      Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    9. Re:A drop in the pond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The absurdity of claiming $2.3B in any copyright suit aside...

      Pinky finger to mouth corner "Two point three BILLION dollars..."

    10. Re:A drop in the pond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I detect a hint of desperation in your joke. Can we assume that you never had any intention of paying your debts off to begin with?

    11. Re:A drop in the pond... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Over the past 2 years the government printed off a trillion dollars and sold the debt to itself. If it really wanted to it could *buy* the 800 billion that China owns pretty easy. Not to mention the fact that if America goes into that big a depression the effect on the rest of the world will be extremely ugly. Food riots would be much more common, among other things

    12. Re:A drop in the pond... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      However that is the real problem, The alleged copyright infringement occurred in China not in the US. For the civil suit to proceed that US must now claim their laws take precedence over the China's laws within China.

      For the judge to accept the case is stupid, as any attempt to claim money will result in a major legal dispute, which will inevitably be lost.

      Any claims can only be made in the US for copyright infringement that occurs within the US. So the response by the government of China was the appropriate response.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:A drop in the pond... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      Over the past 2 years the government printed off a trillion dollars and sold the debt to itself. If it really wanted to it could *buy* the 800 billion that China owns pretty easy. Not to mention the fact that if America goes into that big a depression the effect on the rest of the world will be extremely ugly. Food riots would be much more common, among other things

      This is probably why the rest of the world has been distancing itself from the US economy. You forgetting however that the more money the US gov prints, the less it is worth. Even if they buy the debt themselves. How do they do that? By selling government bonds. To Japan and China. So no, they can't buy themselves out of debt that way. Germany tried paying debts by just printing money in the early 30's and destroyed what was left of their economy after WW1. In fact that's one of the things that created the opening for Hitler to gain power.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    14. Re:A drop in the pond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if we could (or would) actually leverage IP for reducing our foreign debt then my opinion of IP laws would skyrocket. IP seems to be the one of the few things the US has available to export these days.

    15. Re:A drop in the pond... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Yes!!! People will not be able to find food because the next batch of iPhones will be dumped onto the ocean floor instead of being sold to Americans!

      Morons.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    16. Re:A drop in the pond... by Purist · · Score: 0

      The value of IP stolen from the U.S. by China alone is probably impossible to calculate but it would seem to me that it's far past the Trillions of dollars. Think about it...every major corporation's IP is in Chinese hands....all IP from major pharma companies...all IP from aerospace and defense contractors...let alone tech and software firms.

      It's almost unfathomable how much money these types of IP cost to research and develop.

      We can only hope that our security awareness improves (a lot) and we slow the exodus of stolen IP from the U.S. Another consolation (in my mind at least) is that innovation is the key to real leadership.

      --
      I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
    17. Re:A drop in the pond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the suit is really a lot less than what China would pay if....

      The fact that you think you are going to *make* your foreign debt-holders do anything is an indication of how far removed you are from the global economic reality.

    18. Re:A drop in the pond... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      "It says 'one trillion dollars'. But what's this? It also says 'Bank of Zimbabwe'..."

      --
      FGD 135
    19. Re:A drop in the pond... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      This does happen in the case of tangible assets such as oil, so I guess the fact we don't do the same for intellectual property is a tacit admission of some distinction between them vs other types of property.

      I see it more as a tacit admission that we don't want to fuck with China. Given that they could basically tank our economy simply by refusing to buy our bonds, we probably don't want to do anything too aggressive towards them right now. Granted, we could do what you suggested to other countries and leave China alone, but then China would start lookin' at us all shifty-eyed, fearing that they would be next...

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    20. Re:A drop in the pond... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      If a US court had any rights to judge over what happened on foreign soil, perhaps. It doesn't. It's a stupid case and a waste of money on the side of the plaintiff. China was kind enough to actually acknowledge it with a letter. It needn't have.

      Always safer to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. If the Chinese government really believed what you say is true, it should have done that instead of complain to the State department.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  2. An informal letter? by Kreychek · · Score: 1

    "The Chinese side hereby expresses strong concern over it and firmly rejects it" Does that really work in China?

    1. Re:An informal letter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In China and against Chinese companies, yes.

      Hard to believe, but thats how things work over there.

    2. Re:An informal letter? by icebike · · Score: 1

      And also When suing china in some US court.
      Get real, the chance of them paying a single penny is slim to none.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:An informal letter? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Actually, what they can do is seize assets belonging to the Chinese government. I don't think it will take them too long to find assets that they can seize. Now, if China didn't have any investment or economic activity in the US, you'd be correct, but the court can order the Federal government to fork over the appropriate funds next time the Chinese government tries to redeem some bonds.

    4. Re:An informal letter? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      But what would stop that from going the other way? The US seizes $2.3b of Chinese assets in the US; China seizes $2.3b worth of US assets in China (ditto for non-payment of bonds). Rinse, repeat, until one side has no assets left in the other's country?

      --
      FGD 135
    5. Re:An informal letter? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government owns property with ties to the US. As far as I can tell, the US government doesn't own anything China could seize. And if China starts seizing assets of multinational corporations it asserts to be US companies, then their economy will crash when the rest of them pull out to prevent being nationalized.

      You are asserting that if the US government seizes Chinese government property, that the Chinese government seizing property owned by people in hundreds of countries with no direct ties to the US government would be an appropriate, proportional, or reasonable response. It isn't and would be tolerated as well internationally as Germany invading Poland.

    6. Re:An informal letter? by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Also, if I recall, foreign companies can't legally own land in Mainland China - they can just buy multi-decade leases.

    7. Re:An informal letter? by BZ · · Score: 1

      There are effectively no US assets in China. Foreigners aren't allowed to own Chinese real estate, etc, etc.

    8. Re:An informal letter? by killthepoor187 · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since I studied that era, but as I remember, the last time Germany invaded Poland, the international community tolerated it rather well. I don't think anyone really got their panties in a twist until they ran through France.

    9. Re:An informal letter? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      "The Chinese side hereby expresses strong concern over it and firmly rejects it" Does that really work in China?

      Umm...Ahem. The Chinese government, in this day and age, can "firmly reject" whatever the hell it wants.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    10. Re:An informal letter? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Also, if I recall, foreign companies can't legally own land in Mainland China - they can just buy multi-decade leases.

      That's because nobody can legally own land in Mainland China. Aside from the PRC government, of course. All anyone can buy in China is multi-decade (or shorter) leases.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    11. Re:An informal letter? by fishexe · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since I studied that era, but as I remember, the last time Germany invaded Poland, the international community tolerated it rather well. I don't think anyone really got their panties in a twist until they ran through France.

      Actually, Britain and France declared war on Germany immediately upon the invasion of Poland.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  3. Good grief... by JasoninKS · · Score: 1

    It's not like he'll ever see a dime. Does he really expect the Chinese government to cut him a check? At best he's gotten a moral victory and a big bill from his own lawyers.

    1. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do nations waive sovereign immunity with regards to IP in any IP treaties?

    2. Re:Good grief... by marcel · · Score: 0

      Well... if he's granted the 2.3b by the judge is shouldn't be too hard to seize 2.3b in assets from the PRC on US soil. I wonder what the sound of 500 million marching chinese soldiers makes ;-)

    3. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for now, if he plays his cards right, any property of the Chinese government that comes into the US is subject to seizure. This includes any money subject to federal jurisdiction because it is in US banks.

      In addition, they need to worry about reciprocity. If China will not enforce a U.S. judgment, the U.S. has even less reason to enforce a Chinese judgment in the U.S.

    4. Re:Good grief... by jayveekay · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It won't be the PRC government that prevents them from getting money, it will be the USA government that stops them. The hostages held by Iran for 444 days tried to sue (there were substantial Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen and could be used to pay damages), but they lost their lawsuit not because of any defence put on by Iran but rather by the US government.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/01/national/main561274.shtml

      If the USA government does that to protect a state which it considers an enemy (Iran), imagine what they will do to protect the PRC to which they owe a trillion dollars or so.

    5. Re:Good grief... by s13g3 · · Score: 2

      The sound of 500 million marching soldiers becomes the sounds of 500 million men on a boat becomes the sound of 500 million men either vaporized, drowning or otherwise dying of radiation poisoning as the invasion fleet they were being shipped in is summarily nuked. Game over, thanks for playing. The Office of Health and Human Services along with the DEA would also like to remind you that only users lose drugs. We now return you to your regularly scheduled saber rattling and insanity from communist Asia.

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    6. Re:Good grief... by johanw · · Score: 0

      The only thing China has to do is to dump all its US debt certificates on the market and not buying any new ones. The resulting inflation will make $2.3 billion just be enough to buy yourself a decent meal.

    7. Re:Good grief... by erice · · Score: 2

      The Chinese aren't buying US debt out of the goodness of the heart. They do this to keep the Yuan's value down. They want *that* to give Chinese exporters an edge. If the Chinese government dumps all their US T-bills, they will lose control of the Yuan. It's value will rise sharply and Chinese exports will fall almost as dramatically. And the much of the world's economy will also tank since we are all addicted to cheap Chinese manufactured goods. With their customers in deep crisis there will be even less demand of Chinese export goods which the Chinese economy will probably tank too.

    8. Re:Good grief... by Agent.Nihilist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It won't be the PRC government that prevents them from getting money, it will be the USA government that stops them. The hostages held by Iran for 444 days tried to sue (there were substantial Iranian assets in the US that had been frozen and could be used to pay damages), but they lost their lawsuit not because of any defence put on by Iran but rather by the US government.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/01/national/main561274.shtml

      If the USA government does that to protect a state which it considers an enemy (Iran), imagine what they will do to protect the PRC to which they owe a trillion dollars or so.

      Those hostages are alive and free today because of an agreement known as the Algiers Accords (wikipedia). Part of the aggreement that freed them stated that they could not sue Iran. If we reneged after making the accord we would forever lose the option to recover hostages through such an aggreement. This type of action is down to protect US interests and its citizens abroad.

    9. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my experience at simple 80s shooter video games means anything, it'll be easy to defeat them because when you have a dense swarm like that you don't have to aim very precisely. You just point in the general direction and flog the fire button.

    10. Re:Good grief... by jayveekay · · Score: 1

      Agreements signed while someone has a gun pointed to your head (or 52 of your citizens heads) are considered valid by the courts? A crime can be committed against your person but your government can retroactively declare that it wasn't a crime?

      I guess I learned something new today.

    11. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, just like most sovereign immunity statutes in the U.S., sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense initially. This means that the foreign state needs to assert to the court that they are a foreign state backed by minimal evidence. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that either they are not a foreign state OR that one of the exceptions applies. Usually, this is the commercial activity exception or a violation of international law that resulted in the foreign state taking or destroying the plaintiff's property. In this case, because China did not assert this defense in court, they are basically screwed and need to come up with a way to set aside the default.

    12. Re:Good grief... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2

      They are about as valid as every peace treaty signed since the beginning of mankind.

    13. Re:Good grief... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Unless they wait for the Bering Straight to freeze over, they'll be swimming, rather than marching. China could probably repel any non-nuclear invasion, but there's no conceivable scenario in which they could invade and hold the USA or any country in Western Europe for that matter. They have numbers, but not the ability to project that force beyond Tibet or Taiwan (and the fact they haven't in Taiwan indicates they likely never would try for anything more ambitious than that).

    14. Re:Good grief... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yup, it would be akin to killing the goose that laid the golden egg. But the real worry is that in 20 years or so, they'll learn alchemy and be able to print their own gold without the goose. At that point, they could kill it and only get a little sting in the bottom line. But don't worry, we are helping them get to that point as fast as we can. It looks to me like a train wreck in slow motion. I know what's going to happen. But there's nothing I can do to stop it, and I can't look away. Every empire falls, and the US has leaped off the cliff, but in Wiley E. Coyote fashion, is still running without looking down. The actual fall hasn't happened, but I believe there's nothing that can be done now to prevent it.

      And why do I get the feeling that I need to get BadAnalogyGuy to post this for me?

    15. Re:Good grief... by ppanon · · Score: 1

      That's why they've been working on developing internal demand. As their middle class grows, their dependency on external markets decreases. Don't forget that their internal market is 1/6 of the world's population, whereas the US and Europe together aren't that much.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    16. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't china building giant underground military bases ?

      The days of Mao are long gone and the current leaders are not total idiots. What would stop the next leaders to go on a military rampage ? It could very well be that the leaders have a hundred year strategy to grow their economic dominance to the point where they are a massive superpower dwarfing the next nation. Add to that all the economical power with them having investments in almost every country in the world (industrial contracts go more and more often to China instead of europe for example). Technologically, yes China is still behind (slightly) in it's mastery of science but with all the advanced countries bending over backwards to get contract and giving full access to top of the line technology. Whatever few years behind they are would be is made up with massive resources.
      Again right now, there is no reason for China to get military control outside of its borders. They get what they need much more effectively right now by having one way economic deals: they invest in other countries economies to the point of eventually controlling significant sections of the economies, where our leaders bow down and forget to mention human rights in meetings. But the day they need to fight for resources ... brr that will be nasty. What could trigger such a need to secure resources ? Just imagine a global food crisis. It could be triggered by mass flood, an usually warm year, or event an extremely cold one. Populations around the world would be struggling for food, fighting over it; even in the rich countries. Don't you think that a nation that has the mean to take whatever they want would let its population die of starvation ? Personally I believe this is why Japan is subsidizing farming that much while it seems to make no economical sense to grow food there. The countries that can grow so much food that they can export are still the ones that have the power, or rather the most crucial targets.

      But who knows, maybe that will trigger the transition to vat farming of yeast at industrial scale. Removing the need for farmland. That or soylent green.

    17. Re:Good grief... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      We have know way of knowing what the internals of Chinese markets actually look like. The real estate bubble in the US is probably small potatoes compared to the one forming in China though.

    18. Re:Good grief... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      There is a deep bottom line that is only now becoming apparent:

      The Chinese have had more than enough access to better technology. They've shown what they're capable of. That is, not much. China does not have competent engineers, and the minute they're off the US's tit they will being to shrink again. All their muscle is pure manufacturing muscle, not brainpower.

      You know, the kind of work we build machines to do here.

    19. Re:Good grief... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They have the largest power plant in the world, which also happens to be the largest hydro plant in the world. They have the highest train, possibly the fastest train (not yet in service, but tests faster than others have), and lots of trains running reliably over a very large area. They pulled off the Olympics, including doing the impossible (whether through technology or luck, you'd have some argument) of temporarily suspending rain and pollution. They can do anything they choose to do.

      What we see is what we ask for. When the US asks for "cheaper" they get it. Then they complain about the quality. If they wanted quality, then the buyers would need to actually demand quality. Given Wal-Mart's sales figures, China gives us what they want. When they want to engineer something, they do. They can do it bigger, badder, and faster. That we never ask that of them for anything that shows up in the US doesn't mean they can't do it or that they aren't already doing that every day.

    20. Re:Good grief... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      China does not try to feed its economy through gigantic loans to consumers and real estate speculation.

      If it tried to do so, it would immediately lose any need to export anything, and for a while economy would grow much faster than it does -- however no one in China is stupid enough to do it because it's obvious what the consequences of such moves are.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    21. Re:Good grief... by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      No need for (x)AnalogyGuy or anyone else. I think that was the simplest, most visual and easily-digestible summation of the current US economic position I've heard, thank you.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  4. The first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the West shoots first -- IP litigation against the Chinese government. Will China respond in kind? There could be full-scale nuclear-patent warfare coming soon between China and the rest of the world...

    1. Re:The first shot by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Lucky for us the Chinese don't care about honoring patents. So, we just reciprocate. They don't honor ours, we just stop honoring theirs. Encourage US firms to take Chinese IP and develop/market it for themselves. I mean hell, if the Chinese think its ok to do that with our stuff, then they shouldn't have a problem with us doing it to theirs. Maybe MAP? Mutually Assured Piracy?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:The first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's gonna work. If China doesn't honor US patents, the US can sue them. If the US doesn't honor Chinese patents, the Chinese will... oh I dunno... cut off exports to the US?

      Really, who has the upper hand? The country with the fake property, or the one with the real property? Sucks to be us right now.

    3. Re:The first shot by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's gonna work. If China doesn't honor US patents, the US can sue them. If the US doesn't honor Chinese patents, the Chinese will... oh I dunno... cut off exports to the US?

      Except, really, who else is going to buy their exports? Most of the country is dedicated to supplying stores like Wal-mart, or for their own consumption. Think how much money firms like Apple bring in to China? And all those other tech companies that buy components made in China? They might not all be US owned, but a lot of their products are sold in the US. If China stops exporting to the US, we can revive our industrial capability. It will be hard and expensive, but beneficial in the long run. But then who's going to buy all those Chinese-made goods? China can't sustain its own growth and production internally. We might be tied to them, but they are as equally tied to us.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:The first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF it's possible to revive US manufacturing. In a war of attrition, China would have the upper hand. But, tbh, cutting off exports is the least China could do. They own a massive amount of US debt, which they could try to sell, sending the US dollar crashing as a result...

    5. Re:The first shot by present_arms · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure, even though the US spends a lot of $$$ on chinese gear, 300 million people isn't that many when u consider the size of other nations like India for instance at 1.1 billion or europe (i know not a single country but still 740 million and then there is africa at close to a billion asia including china is over 4 billion people. So i'm in kind of agreement that US needs China more than vice-versa, I mean if US companies did pull out of china, would mean that those companies would need to relocate somewhere else, they would need to spend more for manufacturing, salaries etc. Anyway that's what I personally think, I could be wrong :-)

      --
      http://chimpbox.us
    6. Re:The first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest that in the absence of cheap imported goods a way would be found to produce those goods here in the west. America has a large workforce, the Chinese have no magic technology that puts them ahead of the west. The western workers and companies are simply discouraged from doing what they can at the moment.

      It can turn around very quickly if the will were there.

    7. Re:The first shot by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I mean if US companies did pull out of china

      A frustrated China could not be reached for comment.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:The first shot by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      I mean if US companies did pull out of china

      A frustrated China could not be reached for comment...

      ...but will be out of the bathroom "real soon."

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    9. Re:The first shot by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Except, really, who else is going to buy their exports?

      The US buys 25% or so of Chinese exports, and that number is falling. So who else will buy their exports? The rest of the world.

      Most of the country is dedicated to supplying stores like Wal-mart, or for their own consumption.

      Just because the US couldn't survive without China doesn't mean China couldn't survive without the US.

      If China stops exporting to the US, we can revive our industrial capability. It will be hard and expensive, but beneficial in the long run.

      When we had the money, we chose to shut down our industries. When we are broke, we will not be able to revive them. The expensive part will prevent it from happening, as when we stop trade with China, the US dollar will drop like a rock and won't be able to buy anything internationally.

      China can't sustain its own growth and production internally. We might be tied to them, but they are as equally tied to us.

      The only reason they are tied to us now is because they are artificially depressing their currency and propping up the US currency in order to make the US an easy market and keep their products cheap. When the relationship ends, the Yuan will jump internationally and the Dollar will drop. That will hurt them and us, but not equally. The US will enter a period of massive inflation and mass exodus by international corporations to more stable places like Australia and Western Europe and China will just have to reduce production by 25% and spend that extra idle time working on quality and environmental improvements. Tied, yes. "Equally"? Not even close.

      Oh, and give it another 20 years and the US will be just as dependent on China as they are now, and China will be much less tied to the US, further widening the "equal" gap you assert.

    10. Re:The first shot by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      China is one massive real estate and banking bubble plus they are in the midst of an inflationary spiral they are barely able to contain.

      Add anything to disturb that, like revaluation of the Yuan will cause the Mother of All Crashes.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8182605/Chinas-credit-bubble-on-borrowed-time-as-inflation-bites.html

    11. Re:The first shot by mruizcamauer · · Score: 1

      if the USA had to stop all imports from China due to a war it would probably not be alone, with European and other partners perhaps following suit to some degree, since any reason that warrants such a ww4 move (think of the cold war as ww3) may trigger alliances. I don't know if Chinese rulers would not have an insurrection at home from the massive unemployment created there. They are in a tenuous position now, with many local protests squashed and kept quiet each year. India and others could probably substitute China within five years with such a situation. Of course the whole world would suffer more disruption than in the Great Depression! I really doubt it would ever come to that. Chinese and US leaders represent ecomic interests that would not allow any scenario where they all lose.

    12. Re:The first shot by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      If anything at all will happen what can bring US economy down permanently, US will have no allies left.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    13. Re:The first shot by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that in the absence of cheap imported goods a way would be found to produce those goods here in the west. America has a large workforce

      lol

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    14. Re:The first shot by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the NATO mutual defense doctrine doesn't apply to economic wars, nor wars provoked by a member of the alliance.

    15. Re:The first shot by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I mean if US companies did pull out of china

      A frustrated China could not be reached for comment...

      ...but will be out of the bathroom "real soon."

      Good. We're all dying to know if the US companies pulled out in time.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  5. like the sound of all us gun nuts blowing them way by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    like the sound of all us gun nuts blowing them way.

  6. Hahahahahahaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is most impressive example of full-blown egocentrism ever seen!
    No wonder they go around, playing world police. They actually think they are!
    I know /. is not like that, but sometimes I still eel the need to write some PROTIP comment.

    BTW: How many users are we here on /.? I mean, looking at Egypt, it doesn even take 5% of the population of a country, to change things. And I think the amount of people needed to topple a government is not propotional to the amount of people in a country. If 2 million come attacking your government main building, and shooting some does not stop the rest, you don’t do shit. Period. :)
    They only have to be very sure of themselves and their own values. Something smart people are (scientifically proven) notoriously bad at (they underrate themselves, while dumb people overrate themselves). But now that we know we underrate ourselves, we can account for that. :)
    How about we fix things too? (I recommend an autocracy with the government replaced by open source software automation [= 100% representing its people, and by definition no own agenda.] Oh, and for the US, a split in the United States of Catholibans, and the educated rest [still USA] could be realized in the process. :)

    1. Re:Hahahahahahaaa! by therealobsideus · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, what?

    2. Re:Hahahahahahaaa! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      tl;dr version: hurr :), durr :), derp :)

    3. Re:Hahahahahahaaa! by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Catholibans? Are you sure you don't mean Al BornAgaida?

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  7. They should have been smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and write an update that simply disables/uninstall the software on any machine that requests updates from China (Green dam asks for updates to Cybersitter website).
    That could have been really interesting to see...

  8. IANAL but... by Dasuraga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    isn't there some law against suing foreign governments? At the very least, the judicial branch can't possibly imagine having the power to demand money from foreign nations.....can they?

    1. Re:IANAL but... by UltraOne · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is the US federal law that regulates suits in US courts (federal or state) against foreign governments. It lists exceptions to the general rule that foreign states are immune to suit because of sovereign immunity. The exception that this suit is probably based on is the one that says a foreign state can be sued when it is engaged in “commercial activity”.

      Assuming the plaintiff wins the suit, damages would be collected by seizing assets of the foreign state under US jurisdiction. Since US Treasury bonds owned by China are essentially promises by the US Treasury to pay a certain amount of money when the bond comes due, transferring ownership of those bonds to the plaintiff would seem to be a way of collecting damages. Of course, that might have diplomatic consequences.

      IANAL either.

    2. Re:IANAL but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see my post here, but yes they can be sued here and if successfully sued, all of their property subject to the U.S. control is fair game, including the money the U.S. owes them from our bonds.

    3. Re:IANAL but... by UltraOne · · Score: 1

      The posting system mangled the link. I'll try again: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

    4. Re:IANAL but... by UltraOne · · Score: 2
    5. Re:IANAL but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Treasury to pay a certain amount of money when the bond comes due, transferring ownership of those bonds to the plaintiff would seem to be a way of collecting damages. Of course, that might have diplomatic consequences.

      HA! That would have immediate fiscal consequences for the US! US dollar would become semi-useless overnight as most sovereign nations would want to get rid of it. Hell, I would. So, if the US wants to kill its own currency overnight, they could do that.

    6. Re:IANAL but... by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Useless for purchasing things from overseas, but far more useful for companies wanting to export. There's a reason why China undervalues their currency on purpose. I've heard suggestions that one of the reasons China is so interested in US treasury bonds is that they want to pump up the Dollar's value relative to their own.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    7. Re:IANAL but... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Diplomatic consequences are just a polite way of saying pissing off someone that can hurt you.

    8. Re:IANAL but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      What will US export? Promises not to sue if someone will try to sell something in US (a.k.a. most of "IP")?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    9. Re:IANAL but... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Protip: hit "Preview" and then right-click the link, open in new [tab/window] to make sure it works before hitting "Submit".

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    10. Re:IANAL but... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      What will US export? Promises not to sue if someone will try to sell something in US (a.k.a. most of "IP")?

      Given recent activities by big content, this might actually be a very valuable commodity...

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  9. Hang on... by Eil · · Score: 1

    ... you mean it's possible to sue other countries in a U.S. federal court? Is there anyone you can't sue in the U.S.?

    1. Re:Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you mean it's possible to sue other countries in a U.S. federal court? Is there anyone you can't sue in the U.S.?

      Yes, apparently you can't successfully sue your own president ...

    2. Re:Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its possible to sue anyone and anything, but whether it goes through or your called a nut job is a different story

    3. Re:Hang on... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can't sue the American government unless they say you can.

    4. Re:Hang on... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed, which is why every once in a while a suit gets filed against God or some other mythological character. The courts usually dismiss such cases more or less immediately when nobody is able to figure out how to serve a warrant to Santa Clause or similar.

    5. Re:Hang on... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Grow up and stop pretending that the general term "American" isn't used globally and in common parlance to refer to activities of, and bodies within, the United States of America. My statement stands true as written.

    6. Re:Hang on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has Canaduh been anything more than a pretend country?

    7. Re:Hang on... by BZ · · Score: 1

      You can if they're doing certain things in the US. See the references to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act elsewhere in this thread.

      Note, by the way, that a similar question can be raised about the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, etc.

    8. Re:Hang on... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Look, if we admitted they weren't a pretend country we'd have to admit them into our election processes. This would have decidedly deleterious effects.

    9. Re:Hang on... by fishexe · · Score: 1

      ... you mean it's possible to sue other countries in a U.S. federal court? Is there anyone you can't sue in the U.S.?

      Yes, apparently you can't successfully sue your own president ...

      Only if the remedy you're seeking is his removal from office. Otherwise...

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  10. wouldnt be the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldnt be the first time china was found to be doing something unscrupulous. maybe it is in their culture?

    1. Re:wouldnt be the first time by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      wouldnt be the first time china was found to be doing something unscrupulous. maybe it is in their culture?

      The Chinese are like Muslims: If it benefits them, it is the will of their God(s).

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:wouldnt be the first time by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think it's that the Chinese people are people that's the problem. People are inherently hypocritical, even those of us that spend lots of time minimizing it. More likely it's because they are an authoritarian regime that they expect to be able to behave like that without consequences, at least at the party level.

    3. Re:wouldnt be the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldnt be the first time china^^H^H^H^H^Hthe USA was found to be doing something unscrupulous. maybe it is in their culture?

      Not sure if I fixed that for ya, or not. I guess maybe both ways are correct.

    4. Re:wouldnt be the first time by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Chinese people don't want Green Dam and would happily agree to a C&D, but I'm pretty sure they don't care enough about it to stop the government that put it there. Similarly to how the US doesn't particularly like how we're sending our research, development and manufacturing overseas, but doesn't care enough to actually stop the corporate interests that bought the government that facilitate it.

      The fact is that Americans and Chinese are similar: we're more or less content and won't rock the boat until a crisis comes. Then when it's too late, we'll be rioting on the streets demanding an overthrow of whatever poor sucker happens to be in charge.

    5. Re:wouldnt be the first time by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Chinese people don't want Green Dam...

      I'm pretty sure that *SOME* of the Chinese people don't want the Green Dam (and quite frankly, the name sounds like a STD device), but how do you know that the MAJORITY don't like it? Just because we Westerners cotton to ideas of Democracy and the freedoms therein, doesn't mean that all people do.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:wouldnt be the first time by fishexe · · Score: 1

      The Chinese are like Muslims: If it benefits them, it is the will of their God(s).

      So much so, that many of them are Muslims. By which I mean tens of millions of them.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  11. China called by unity100 · · Score: 1

    they say they are quite scared of an american court passing judgment on them.

    1. Re:China called by devman · · Score: 1

      There is probably at least 2.3b worth of PRC government assets on US soil that could be seized pursuant to a judgement.

    2. Re:China called by trewornan · · Score: 1

      And there's probably at least 2.3b worth of US government assets on PRC soil that could be seized without a judgement. Sounds like PRC quite correctly take the view that US courts have no jurisdiction over what happens in another country and can go screw themselves. Go China! I only wish my government had a similar attitude.

    3. Re:China called by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      and there's probably at least $2.3b worth of US assets on Chinese soil which could be siezed in compensation for an illegal seizure. Where does it end?

      --
      FGD 135
    4. Re:China called by devman · · Score: 1

      I suppose the US could bill them for it in outstanding T-bonds :)

    5. Re:China called by jayveekay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It ends when the US wins because it owes trillions of dollars to China..

      To paraphrase Donald Trump: "When you owe someone a billion dollars, they have power over you. When you owe someone a trillion dollars, you have power over them!"

    6. Re:China called by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And there's probably at least 2.3b worth of US government assets on PRC soil

      Really? What kind assets do you think the US government holds in China? Bases? Embassies? What else?

    7. Re:China called by unity100 · · Score: 1

      china is the country basically funding u.s. govt. debt. leave aside 'assets'. the entire borrowing capability of u.s. now depends on china. if china sells the u.s. govt bonds it holds, their value will drop so low that us govt wont be able to borrow by selling new bonds. not to mention that dollar will sink to bottom and get replaced by another currency as the trade currency.

      you are talking about a pathetic amount of 2.5 b worth of prc assets .

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/

      china holds more than $801.5 billion worth of u.s. govt bonds. go figure.

    8. Re:China called by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Despite recent government reports that China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury debt declined during the second half of last year, the Asian economic giant almost certainly owns far more Treasury securities than official statistics indicate. After peaking at $801.5 billion, China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities declined to $755.4 billion at the year’s end, dropping the communist power into the position of second-largest holder of Treasury debt after Japan’s $768.8 billion, official government data reveal.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/

    9. Re:China called by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      The best assets to seize are these US govt bonds you refer to. They most likely are not physical printed bonds but rather digital records, but in the event that they are they will have serial numbers and can simply be declared void and reissued to the winner of the suit. Of course since they have not matured, they aren't worth as much yet, so a higher value may have to be transferred...

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    10. Re:China called by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Our debt to china is not a US asset held in China. It is a Chinese asset held by the US...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:China called by unity100 · · Score: 1

      incorrect. in the world of finance, there is no such thing. if china decides to sell all those bonds, and u.s. declines, that will cause u.s. bonds to become worthless. and hamper the ability of borrowing for govt.

    12. Re:China called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's a lose for the US. If they renege on those loans, they won't be able to borrow money from anybody - who would lend to a bad debtor? No credit = No liquidity = no economy for you!

    13. Re:China called by trewornan · · Score: 1

      I said "probably" because I don't know, but purely speculatively, US assets might include some or all of the following:

      US official reserve assets, Gold, Foreign Currency, Securities, Bond, Corporate Stocks, Physical Assets (Buildings, Land, Motor Vehicles, Storage Facilities), and probably a load of stuff I haven't thought of.

      Not that I'd be surprised if US Gov assets in PRC don't total 2.8 billion but . . . probably.

    14. Re:China called by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      Any attempt to take assets from diplomatic soil would be construed as an act of war.

      What I want to know is what the U.S. are going to do when china says to the U.S., Ch sh jí mújù

    15. Re:China called by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      plenty of things may be construed as an act of war - doesn't mean it's in the 'victim's interest to start an all-out war about them. The US can claim that seizing an embassy is an act of war, but it's unlikely to get a lot of international sympathy from other countries who are equally uneasy about US courts just ignoring their own sovereign immunity (although they would probably be equally uneasy about China ignoring the sovereignty of their own embassies), or that there would be any chance of getting a security council resolution against China (because China would just veto it). This leaves the US rolling into an incredibly messy war to invade China, which she doesn't have the resources or manpower to fight, over what are really minimal assets.

      Ultimately, if this case does go through, (rather than being squashed before it gets much further), neither government will be willing to suffer the consequences of any actions involved in actually trying to enforce it. Leaving the plantiff with an unenforceable ruling that's not worth the paper it's written on.

      --
      FGD 135
    16. Re:China called by fishexe · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is what the U.S. are going to do when china says to the U.S., Ch sh jí mújù

      I strongly doubt China will ever say that without adding at least two more vowels first.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  12. lolwut by syncrotic · · Score: 2

    The full title of this software is actually GREEN DAM YOUTH ESCORT.

    For guarding of the youth, to making safe and happy social harmony. Great and capable software for glorious ten thousand year nation. Code is not stolen; developed by brilliant engineers at November 23 People's Collective Software Refinery.

    1. Re:lolwut by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      oh.... yeah. Sure it was.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  13. Best case scenario? by Palmsie · · Score: 1

    Candidly speaking, say the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, what then? What possible outcome could occur such that PRC is forced to pay any or all of the suit?

    If anyone is versed in international law (if that is what this is called), I am genuinely interested what the possible (albeit unlikely) outcomes could be.

    --
    Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
    1. Re:Best case scenario? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Best case for the plaintiff is the default stands and he finds property that belongs to the Chinese government worth the amount of the judgment, which is then sold at auction to pay him. The alternative is he gets to institute a garnishment and the Government pays him the amounts of China's bonds as they become due to China.

      Best case scenario for China is that they get the default set aside (by following the rules this time) based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act as a successful defense and they satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). This means that the default is set aside and they get a second chance. China then follows the rules on the second go round and raises the FSIA as a defense and they don't owe anything and all they lost was 6 months to a year and lawyer fees, which the plaintiff has to pay because he knew the defendant was immune the whole time.

    2. Re:Best case scenario? by UltraOne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Almost all of the US Treasury debt owned by China (and in general) is in the form of book-entry securities. This means there is no physical document for the treasury bill, note or bond. It exists as an entry in the database of a broker or the US Treasury. The court could simply order ownership of an appropriate value of those securities to be transferred from the Chinese government to the successful plaintiff.

    3. Re:Best case scenario? by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      Huh. I suppose, if we game the auction correctly, we can deprive China of far more than 2.3B.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:Best case scenario? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh. I suppose, if we game the auction correctly, we can deprive China of far more than 2.3B.

      It happens all the time. An example is when a home is worth $100,000 with a mortgage for $50,000 and is foreclosed on. The mortgage company will commonly be the only bidder at the auction and will bid the mortgage amount of the home, which they pay and goes straight back to them. It is a common practice at such auctions for the mortgage companies to only bid on the houses they have a mortgage on. Therefore, in our example they end up with a $100,000 home for only $50,000 without having to pay any money to anyone. They can then turn around and sell it for the $100,000. Therefore they make the rest of the money as profit. The interesting part is that if someone pays more than the mortgage amount, the excess money goes back to the people who owned the property before the sale. By foreclosing on the home, and buying it for the mortgage amount, they are actually cutting the former homeowner of the $50,000 excess that they would usually get.

      In the case of the judgment against China, people could also underbid. The plaintiff can keep taking property until the judgment is satisfied or the judgment dies after the set amount of time. Therefore, substantially more than $2.3B could be sold off in order to get to the judgment amount.

  14. don't care... you can ignore this news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is one of those "blabla 2.3 billion blabla" things...

    google seach for "2.3 billion china" and you will find

    2.3 billion people in China to go home by train this year.
    China's Red Cross gives 2.3 billion yuan for reconstruction in ...
    Macau January casino revenue grows 33% to us$ 2.3 billion ...
    About economy: China's Workforce is 2.3 Billion People: Are you ...
    Chinese firms buy 2.3 billion dollars IT products from US(14/01/04)
    hktdc.com - China National Travel Service to issue RMB 2.3 billion ...
    China: 2.3 Billion Earthquake Museum Global Voices
    China: Rongsheng Heavy intends to raise $ 2.3 billion in an IPO in ...

    my guess is that they use a smaller number for a smaller country...

  15. Payment by Akzo · · Score: 1

    Good luck getting China to pay

    --
    Sig is for Signature, so you don't have to manually sign every post.
    1. Re:Payment by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      Maybe the U.S. will invade China, they did it to Iraq no problem. I doubt that china would resist...

  16. So, let me see if I understand you logic by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China has not been honoring ANY of their treaties. They have their money fixed to the dollar. They have trade barriers in place. They subsidize and dump on the market. They steal IP all over. Per their treaty with Japan, they are required to have scrubbers on all of their power plants. W SHOULD have taken care fo this last decade, but did not. So, now, America decides to address just a little bit of the issues, and you think that China will start a nuke war over it and that America is to blame?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:So, let me see if I understand you logic by icebraining · · Score: 1

      GP never said that America (or better, the US) would be to blame.

    2. Re:So, let me see if I understand you logic by wisty · · Score: 2

      The US has not been honoring ANY of their treaties. They have their money fixed to the RMB. They have trade barriers in place (especially agricultural ones, which disadvantage poor farmers in poor countries). They subsidize and dump on the market. They refuse to let Mickey Mouse onto the public domain, long after he should have been freed. They invade oil producing countries all over. They make software like Bittorent, Limewire, TOR, and Linux which are all just tools for piracy. Per their own legislation, they are required to have low emission cars. W SHOULD have taken care fo this last decade, but did not. So, now, China decides to borrow just a little bit of source code, and you think that they are to blame?

      PS, I think that the alleged code theft was done by a contractor producing the code. Kind of a Blackwater or HBGary kind of thing. /troll

    3. Re:So, let me see if I understand you logic by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The Yaun is not fixed to the dollar, it's fixed to a Basket of currencies included the dollar, the pound, and the euro.

    4. Re:So, let me see if I understand you logic by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Right. Here is a clue. When all other moneys are in play against the dollar, and the Yuan does not move for several years, then I think that it is safe to assume that it is fixed against the dollar.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:So, let me see if I understand you logic by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Right. Here is a clue. When all other moneys are in play against the dollar, and the Yuan does not move for several years, then I think that it is safe to assume that it is fixed against the dollar.

      When the Yuan did not move for several years, it was officially fixed to the dollar. Since it has been officially unfixed, there has not been a period of "several years" in which it did not move against the dollar. FACT.

      Now, maybe it hasn't been moving enough, and very likely it is still "secretly" fixed to the dollar for periods of 9 or 10 months with a brief controlled shift in between, but your "evidence" that it is fixed is false.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  17. Why would you copy software that doesn't work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Green Dam was a piece of software that was designed to block porn by analyzing contiguous flesh-colored regions. However, a really fatal bug in the software is that it kept on blocking pictures of pigs.

  18. Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Yadda Yadda by SINternet · · Score: 0

    If the do not observe our Ownership and insist on copying then we should do the same. Take care trying this because our own GOV has been bought and paid for by China and our bastard of a Congress will make sure your made an example of. Didn't we go through a period of this with Japan and Taiwan...maybe this will all blow over (fat chance).

  19. Probably a great outcome for Cybersitter by wrencherd · · Score: 1
    This seems to have just been a procedural step in the progress of this suit (as TFA notes):

    As a result, Cybersitter's suit against the PRC, Zhengzhou Jinhui Computer System Engineering Ltd., Beijing Dazheng Human Language Technology Academy Ltd. and PC OEMs Sony, Lenovo, Acer, Asustek, BenQ, and Haier, may proceed.

    I don't believe that it would make much difference if there were a judgment against PRC, b/c there is no way to enforce a US court's judgment against another sovereign.

    Also according to TFA, Sony tried to remove the case to China's courts, but . . .

    The court denied Sony's motion, but did state in its ruling that China itself would qualify as "as an adequate alternative forum" for trial, instead of the United States.

    It is unlikely that Sony (and the other defendants) would've paid for their lawyers to try to remove the suit to China unless they thought that the outcome would be more favorable for them there; most likely that means that the lax protection for IP infringement there would have negated any recovery for Cybersitter.

    The ironic result is that by this decision Cybersitter is going to get its best/only shot at the most it could hope to recover from this suit.

  20. So... by shadowofwind · · Score: 0

    Is someone going to fix the /. thresholds or not? There should be a way to see +5 responses to +2 comments without browsing at +2.

    In one of Alastair Reynolds' SF novels, an entire space-faring civilization traces its roots back to /.

    Ha ha ha. We can't even get remotely accurate summaries or web software that works right.

  21. I'll bet they didn't show up because... by AtoningUnifix · · Score: 1

    They were to busy laughing....

    1. Re:I'll bet they didn't show up because... by alexmin · · Score: 1

      They will stop laughing when Cybersitter will get court permit to seize Air China aircraft on US grounds. If you think this is far fetched, think again. In 2001 Russian fighter jets fled from Paris Air show because of property dispute between Swiss trading company Noga and Russian government. Russia eventually settled with Noga by paying in full.
      http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-22/world/france.planes_1_paris-air-show-noga-jet-fighters?_s=PM:WORLD

    2. Re:I'll bet they didn't show up because... by BatGnat · · Score: 1

      "Diplomatic Immunity"
      How do I type with a South African accent...?

    3. Re:I'll bet they didn't show up because... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      In July 2000, Noga managed to have a renowned Russian sailing ship impounded when it came to France to take part in an international regatta. The "Sedov" was finally allowed to sail from the northwestern port of Brest after a court ruled it could not be held.

      Last May, a court froze the accounts of Russia's embassy in Paris, its trade representation and its delegation to UNESCO at Noga's request. The move left the embassy struggling to pay its bills for three months.

      Russia successfully appealed, arguing that the freeze violated treaties on diplomatic rights and immunity.

      Noga has been pulling these stunts for years. They once convinced a Swiss court to illegally seize artwork which belonged to Russia (which was also chucked out). You imply that a country's stuff can be seized when in a foreign country, but the result is that 20 years later, and after actually having Russia's stuff in its posession Noga has not actually managed to realise anything from grabbing Russian assets because it always has to give them back.

      --
      FGD 135
  22. Re:like the sound of all us gun nuts blowing them by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    This comment seems to sum up the arrogant stupidity of so many posters here so well. I'll grant the poster below that probably the US army could nuke away the red army (though remember China has nukes too, and has been specifically targeting US military systems for a while, so we can assume they have at least some secret systems to do so effectively). The idea that a bunch of gun nuts interfering is going to do anything except slow down the bullets from mini-guns is so stupid that the only comparable stupidity is that of people telling the country that invented toilet paper, most of the basic vegetables you eat, gunpowder that you need for your wars and a bunch of other things that you just expect to use without thought that they own you for your "intellectual property" because "we say so".

    China's development is likely to slow down lots; They have environmental problems beyond belief which are going to mess up their economy whether they try to ignore them or not. Building them up into a magical dragon about to eat the world is not going to help you in dealing with this. On the other hand, just a little bit of respect for your fellow intelligent human beings would really really help you to develop into some kind of civilization. Failing to underestimate your potential opponents will also help you avoid problems like the Battle of Unsan. If you could show some kind of consistent respect for the Chinese at the same time as not continually selling out your industrial secrets and industrial future for cheap plastic toys.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  23. Re:like the sound of all us gun nuts blowing them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like the sound of all us gun nuts blowing them way.

    Holy shit! You're an American! All this time I actually thought you were Chinese yourself! No offence intended, seriously.

    Well, judging from your reply you are clearly not Chinese. What's more, it seems the two of us are on the same side (if not the same soil).

    Posting as AC because I'm feel like being anonymous.. which I guess makes me a coward.

  24. With all due respect by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    The Chinese gov. will not recognize this coming from a) a small state court, maybe and MAYBE only supreme court.
    b) they would not recognize allegations against them from a nation that is guilty itself of doing the same, and also of a country
    that when confronted with the truth about its invasion of iraq, was neglecting to show any proper information of WMDs.

    This would be like being brought to court by a crack whore who says you broke into her house and stole something, the credibility is just not there...for the rest of the world anyways....as for this small court house in xxx, I really feel bad for the judge who agreed to review this case, he will become a laughing stock no matter what his ruling.

  25. Judgment by Default by Geotopia · · Score: 1

    "China doesn't get paid"

    This is absolutely brilliant! We don't have to monetize the crap out of the dollar through profligate printing at the Fed. Instead, we lawyer up and sue the crap out of the Chinese in our courts and in their arrogance, they do diddly squat like the consolute did in this case. They lose judgment after judgment by default, and then when they come to claim California, Oregon, and Washington states, we serve the execution writs on the many judgments and then they only get California instead of the whole damn West Coast.