Slashdot Mirror


US Senators Voice Concern Over Chinese Access To Intellectual Property (reuters.com)

Leaders of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday they were concerned about what they described as China's efforts to gain access to sensitive U.S. technologies and intellectual property through Chinese companies with government ties. From a report: Senator Richard Burr, the committee's Republican chairman, cited concerns about the spread of foreign technologies in the United States, which he called "counterintelligence and information security risks that come prepackaged with the goods and services of certain overseas vendors. The focus of my concern today is China, and specifically Chinese telecoms (companies) like Huawei and ZTE that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the Chinese government," Burr said. Senator Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic vice chairman, said he had similar concerns. "I'm worried about the close relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese technology firms, particularly in the area of commercialization of our surveillance technology and efforts to shape telecommunications equipment markets," Warner said.

115 comments

  1. We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We sold our soul long ago when we allowed the blind capitalistic pursuit of cheaper labor to ship a large portion of our manufacturing capacity overseas, primarily to China. Anyone with a brain understood that by doing this we were giving them our IP and in the long term it would probably be a bad deal for us, but we allowed short term pursuit of higher profits to make the decisions and the government was perfectly happy to look the other way, as long as those fat corporate campaign contributions kept flowing.

    I don't blame China. They simply used our greed against us. Well played, China. Bravo.

    1. Re:We sold our soul long ago by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      What should we have done instead? Built a wall around America to keep ideas from leaking out?

    2. Re:We sold our soul long ago by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      20 years ago, I attended a talk by a Sinologist who talked about Cocoa Cola's entry into China. The Chinese government had required that they partner with a Chinese company and produce their product locally, in 1984. The Chinese company then spent 10 years studying Cocoa Cola's products, workflow, supply chain, and so on until they understood it better than Cocoa Cola. Then they started producing their own versions, and used this as leverage to increase their ownership share of the joint venture. Anyone who engaged in this kind of 'partnership' after this point had no excuse for claiming that they were doing anything other than selling their company to the Chinese

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:We sold our soul long ago by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There is no secret to making "cola" and in blind taste tests, people do NOT prefer CocaCola to other brands. In fact, most people prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi. The only advantage that CocaCola has is their brand. The Chinese did not learn to make cola by "stealing" Coke's "secret recipe".

    4. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa! Who said anything about stealing a recipe? Please don't get defensive about your obvious lack of understanding, and please do not jump to conclusions or create straw men.

    5. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but why are we trying to do that now?

    6. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, comrade, take a lesson from comunist russia. want to protect your precious values, build an iron curtain, simple as that

    7. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cruise missle strikes against all military manufacturing facilities using stolen ideas: aerospace, naval, etc. They are a foul insectoid race with chinky moon faces.

    8. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Small detail: much of that IP was developed and brought to you by Chinese nationals on H1B visas to begin with. Calling it "IP theft" makes you look like idiots.

    9. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Guess what? Everyone steals from everyone else, one way or another. Knowing something can be done is more than 50% of the way towards being able to duplicate it. Smart companies don't just duplicate someone else's work, they improve on it, and 'steal' their market share that way. So far as I can tell it's always been this way; it's called 'competition'.

      The real concern is enemies of our way of life stealing our classified technology. Of course we do that to them, too. Something else that's always been this way.

    10. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I worked for Procter & Gamble 20+ years ago. Back then there was a project for P&G to start making Crest toothpaste in China, part of the entry in to that market. Well, long story short, we had to hand over all the IP related to Crest and the manufacturing lines to them to even get the 'right' to enter into the market, plus every tube of toothpaste sold there had to be manufactured there. What we did is get 1950's era line(s) back in working order and shipped them over, plus the old Crest recipe from same time. So both China and P&G benefited. China for jumpstarting their research into toothpaste and P&G entry into the market. Now many years later P&G is almost out of the market as local companies in China now have the 'inside' track on deals/market share, etc, etc.. So, if anyone thinks the Chinese play fair, you have your head in the sand, but the opposite is true as well, if US Corporations hadn't sold their soul and IP to China they wouldn't be in the pickle they are today, and the US as well.

    11. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Government officials and industry leaders sold us out - as usual the little folk had no say so.

    12. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What should we have done instead? Built a wall around America to keep ideas from leaking out?

      Seriously? Do you not possess any reading comprehension whatsoever?

      ...when we allowed the blind capitalistic pursuit of cheaper labor to ship a large portion of our manufacturing capacity overseas, primarily to China.

      Perhaps not shipping our manufacturing base overseas.

      Idiot

    13. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't sell our soul, we actually helped hundreds of million of people get out of poverty.

    14. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To continue with your IP=Liquid analogy: There's a difference between a reservoir and a river. Both allow water to flow downstream, but one keeps the water for a bit before letting it go (usually only when there is new incoming water). The U.S. is currently acting like a river with its IP because it thought the faster flow of IP "downstream" would float riches "upstream", but didn't take into account drought periods, or more importantly, that the "downstream" folk could somehow use their stored water to become the new "upstream".

    15. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only did you completely, idiotically, miss the point, but "blind taste tests" aren't relevant to how people drink soda. Blind taste tests are one or two sips, typically 10-15 ml. Sure, sweeter tastes good initially, but after a few more sips, it gets cloying. And you know what, tastes differ between people and cultures. There's a reason Coke comes in dozens of local varieties and dominates the soft drink market in most of the world.

    16. Re:We sold our soul long ago by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not shipping our manufacturing base overseas.

      How do you accomplish that?
      Make it illegal to export machinery and equipment?
      Scan emails to foreigners, to ensure they don't have any blueprints or designs?
      Make it illegal for smart people to travel abroad?

      In the 1990s, we banned the transfer of cryptographic technology. Today, this is widely viewed as a disastrous policy. Since companies could not export crypto software written in America, they did all their crypto development elsewhere, so America lost both jobs and expertise, the exact opposite of the law's intention.

      Throughout history, many many nations have attempted to restrict the free movement of people, capital, and ideas. Can you cite any examples of this ever working well?

    17. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it was way better to help arm a potential future enemy so we couldn't resist. #sarcasm

    18. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free market. No wall around the US, free immigration, no barriers to entry, lousy trade deals.

      Thank god Trump at least brings this to the forefront. (He aint going to do anything, unless it boosts his ego by 50% or gets his son-in-law 1/2 billion).

      The elites sold you out both liberals and conservatives, enjoy...

    19. Re:We sold our soul long ago by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are conflating capitalism and globalism. they aren't the same thing at all. Capitalism and greed work great, except when you mix them with globalism or communism. What we have is not a failing of capitalism, it is the result of a government allowing free trade in a global environment which has non-capitalistic (e.g. communist, socialist, and control-economies of other varieties) acting within it. At a bare minimum we need to eliminate free trade and match tariffs to the cost differences of products, ideally we should weight those tariffs even more heavily such that other countries don't even have a chance at competing with US-based products and services. From an outside perspective our nation needs to have the apparent structure of the most dangerous competitor (e.g., China with its monolithic structure acting in unison,) internally we can still keep the capitalism and the benefits it offers from personal liberty through productivity benefits. You can create that interface simply by ensuring it costs more to import anything (labor, goods, services, etc) from a foreign nation.

      It is by no means a failing of capitalism that it can't compete against a communist society fueled by slave labor like work conditions and a third world like standard of living, unless you are suggesting we should drop to that level just to compete for some hand-wavy globalist agenda. The failing is in treating China as an equal, no other nation is our equal and no nation should be treated as our equal. This is literally the entire purpose of government: to ensure our citizens have the greatest share of resource scarcity possible, by economics, war, or whatever else.

    20. Re:We sold our soul long ago by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      In fact, most people prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi.

      You are not only wrong, but you're a terrible person.

    21. Re: We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all it cost us was our quality of life, environment, and future! What a deal!!

    22. Re:We sold our soul long ago by larryjoe · · Score: 2

      Guess what? Everyone steals from everyone else, one way or another. Knowing something can be done is more than 50% of the way towards being able to duplicate it. Smart companies don't just duplicate someone else's work, they improve on it, and 'steal' their market share that way. So far as I can tell it's always been this way; it's called 'competition'.

      I think you're using "steal" as a synonym for acquire. There are many ways to acquire technology. Most people generally applaud R&D that utilizes publicly available information. Most people probably also condemn criminal theft of technology. Then there is the gray area, where technology is effectively stolen but where the theft is legitimized via laws that explicitly proclaim such theft to be lawful. This is the case in China. Yes, the companies voluntarily enter into these theft arrangements, but it's still legalized theft. This situation is similar to blackmail, i.e., if you do not give me your technology, the future of your company is in jeopardy.

      Perhaps the real question that others have touched upon is why American (and other) companies feel the need to expand into China and enter into this problematic arrangement. I think that a large part of the motivation is the same problem that causes short-term cost cutting at the expense of long-term growth and stability. The decision makers at these companies are incentivized to be short-sighted, to maximize their bonuses even at the cost of longer-term stability. These executives aren't emotionally attached to their companies, and they incur no penalty in sabotaging the future of their companies. I think that's the real problem. It's a problem that could be entirely corrected by the non-Chinese companies (e.g., by making all bonus contingent on long-term success), but again the members of the compensation committees also profit greatly from the current situation and therefore are incentivized to perpetuate the problem.

    23. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The time for this waking up was 1997 at the latest. Horsey is long bolted. Thank you Clinton. While the West's leaders look to blowjobs and ego boosting popularity contests every 4 years, China has a 200 year plan and the force to say 'shut up and make it so'. Guess who wins? Duh.

    24. Re: We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill has to defend china is ANY post that mentions it. China is where he currently lives and the birthplace of his mail order bride.

      She was pimped out to 3 other white men first,
      But bill fell in love with her. Captain Save-a-hoe.

      The story of bill.

    25. Re:We sold our soul long ago by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Our capitalists had the choice
      Less expensive labor from overseas...
      Or massive investments in retraining and employing that 19% of Americans who are healthy but unable to find work
      The Capitalists sold the rope and the wood and the saws for the gallows.
      Wonder if they will stick their heads through and grin?

    26. Re: We sold our soul long ago by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I wish RC Cola would steal the diet cola recipe from just about anyone else. That shit tastes like Dr. Pepper.

    27. Re: We sold our soul long ago by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I watched a program on toothpaste making. They seemed to show the whole process, only hiding their quality assurance criteria and claim to have such good QA, they'll throw out a big ass batch if it's not up to their grades. Tl;dr: crush up rocks and check consistency. Adjust to taste.

    28. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Our US (ahem, I mean "global") corporations have moved manufacture of their products overseas. The factories that would have been built here were instead built there. The environmental regulations (pre-Trump at least) and labor laws are not those that would have governed employees here but instead are whatever is the law there - often much lower standards. Oversight and potentially control of the means of production is now in the hands of foreign governments.

      If, to take one example, China decided tomorrow to cripple the US they could simply stop allowing products manufactured on their soil being exported to the US. You say "but that would kill their economy" and that might be true, but it is also possible that they'd be able to get on without US exports for a while longer than the US could get along without new electronic equipment.

      So when a US corp that moved their factories to China complains that a Chinese manufacturer stole their IP, I say that they got what they deserved.

    29. Re: We sold our soul long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill has to defend china is ANY post that mentions it. China is where he currently lives and the birthplace of his mail order bride.

      She was pimped out to 3 other white men first,
      But bill fell in love with her. Captain Save-a-hoe.

      The story of bill.

      I am amazed

      When someone says something bad about the Mexicans or the Blacks you SJWs jump

      But when it comes to Chinese, any one can say any derogatory remark on them and the SJWs never do nothing

      Looks like the SJWs are as racist as the people they accuse of

    30. Re:We sold our soul long ago by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If, to take one example, China decided tomorrow to cripple the US they could simply stop allowing products manufactured on their soil being exported to the US.

      ... and immediately be dealing with 50 million unemployed people and a great depression as the Chinese economy implodes by 26%.

      China depends on exports far more than America depends on imports.

    31. Re:We sold our soul long ago by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think I mentioned that in the sentence that follows the one you quoted.

      But my point was not "balance of trade"; it was that US total dependence on Chinese manufacturing could result in crippling of the US economy should China at any point decide to stop manufacturing goods for the US. That's both an economic and a security issue.

      Now I'm not suggesting that China would do such a thing for her economic benefit. But should there be rumors of war, watch out.

    32. Re:We sold our soul long ago by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      You could make the point that it is good for knowledge to spread across the globe. By China catching up technology-wise and learning from the west, they can break new ground faster instead of having to reinvent the wheel. At some point the technology will also flow back and humanity benefits as a whole.

  2. I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by bogaboga · · Score: 0

    "I'm worried about the close relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese technology firms, particularly in the area of commercialization of our surveillance technology and efforts to shape telecommunications equipment markets,"

    So, we should all be worried because this senator is also worried - even without any evidence warranting the worry. Right? Isn't that how we ended up bombing [chaos into] some country in the Mideast more than a decade ago?

    1. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucker is worried because he knows telcos are just dragnets that operate in a profit-seeking fashion

    2. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So, we should all be worried because this senator is also worried - even without any evidence warranting the worry. Right?

      What are you talking about "without any evidence"? There is a history of Chinese corporations acting exactly how they are describing.

      Isn't that how we ended up bombing [chaos into] some country in the Mideast more than a decade ago?

      Nice strawman but nobody is talking about dropping bombs in another nation.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re: I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well retaliation comes in many forms. You cant have your cake and eat it too. There is also a history of OMG COMMIES ARE BAD BOMB THEM from the usa to the world. When you dont care a bit about other and only for your own profit, it is no surprise that others dont care about your intellectual property (regardless of hi doses of stupidity in that word construct) and only for their own profit.

    4. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are a backward and violent people

      In the last 50 years, America has been in over a dozen wars and military interventions. China has been in one.

      The murder rate in China is one sixth of America's rate.

      Perhaps you mean "official" violence against their own people? America "wins" there too, by arresting and imprisoning more than 4 times as many people per capita.

      So who is more violent?

    5. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by Comboman · · Score: 2

      I'm more worried about the close relationship between the US government and US technology firms, like Verizon corporate douche-bag Ajit Pai becoming head of the FCC.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    6. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I'm not american HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, oh christ no I wouldn't put a toe into that backward toad pool of hillbillies racists and psychopaths if you paid me a very handsome some of money.

      However I refuse to back down on china being backward, their herbal remedies are beyond bullshit, their treatment of people is disgusting, and the way they allow their citizens to be abused by corporations is repulsive.

      I refuse to back done on china being violent, they are known to organ harvest prisoners, known to murder suspected criminals acting as judge jury and executioner.

      The united states is definitely in a slide down into the muck, so much so that as I say above I wouldn't go there no matter what, it's a shit hole. They do at least pay lip service though to human rights, granted it is all a hot load of shit, but at least they have their PR working on it.

      Quite frankly both the united states and china can go burn in hell together for all I care. China is still repugnant and it is violent and it is backwards.

    7. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that backward toad pool of hillbillies racists and psychopaths if you paid me a very handsome some of money.

      Hey, that's only 46% of the US! And we don't usually pay people to come here (unless they're from Slovakia).

      Pray tell what gilded paradise you hail from?

    8. Re:I am intrigued avout the "worry"... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And we don't usually pay people to come here (unless they're from Slovakia).

      She's Slovenian, not Slovak.

      Slovenia is a former part of Yugoslavia, and lies between Italy and Croatia.

      Slovakia was the eastern half of Czechoslovakia, and lies between Poland and Hungary.

  3. Isn't that a herd of horses running away? by Snotnose · · Score: 3

    Maybe now is a good time to shut the barn door.

    Don't forget how to properly differentiate:
    - Worrisome Threat To Our Technological Edge: the Chinese/Indians reached in and took the secret sauce
    - Shortage Of Qualified Engineers: we brought in people from China/India on short-term visas, taught them the secret sauce recipe, and forced them to return home.
    - US Companies Must Remain Competitive: we outsourced the secret sauce to China/India to boost our quarterly results.

  4. So... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    We don't want other countries getting access to IP, however we don't want to regulate business and allow them to do what is the most profitable, but we want these business to hire only American workers, without telling the companies that they have to hire American workers. We want to hire American workers to fill all the jobs, but we are at full employment and companies have a hard time finding employees.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:So... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's ironic that they don't see the parallels when US companies use broken encryption standards created by the NSA, or are at the mercy of secret National Security Letters. At least the Chinese government doesn't try to hide what it's doing, not that I'm condoning it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full employment... do those two words actually belong together?

  5. Who would have thought! by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And these corporate blow boys are just now figuring out that dealing with China means they will suck every iota of technology out of your company and throw it back a year later as their own?

    Seriously...it's 'way past time Americans at least made a token effort to get control of their government back from the oligarchs.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Who would have thought! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously...it's 'way past time Americans at least made a token effort to get control of their government back from the oligarchs.

      I have an idea. Let's not. Let's just let the oligarchs get taken for everything they're worth and more by Chinese businessmen, and when the oligarchs come crying to us to stop the evil mean Chinese from ripping them off, let's laugh in their faces and say "What's the matter? Can't deal with the global market?"

    2. Re:Who would have thought! by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The CIA should have warned the USA decades ago. But no. The CIA thought letting the US university system fill with academics from China would spread democracy back to China.
      That the carefully selected Communist party members allowed into the US university system to "study" would love freedom so much they would make China democratic when they returned to China.
      That the CIA could gain spies deep in China by been nice to academics from China while in the USA.
      Did China allow the CIA charm to build up a huge spy network over decades back in China?
      The people allowed to study in the USA did not respond to the CIA approaches and stayed loyal to China while taking all US tech and science back to China.
      The CIA just let more in to try and find a few who would turn and spy for the USA back in China.
      The US gave China decades of free access to it top educators. Every US industrial and scientific secret was lost to China in a generation.
      China spied for generations on the USA and the CIA and FBI did nothing to stop the flow of information back to China.
      Now China sells the innovative US methods, products and services back to the USA.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Free backup! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Listen - we put Donald Trump in the white house.

    Donald Trump.

    No, really - Donald Trump.

    If I were some other large nation, I'd want to send some folks over there to just, well, save any important pieces of information, perhaps get a few pieces of future historical artifacts before this small era of human history crashes.

    Seriously - we elected a cartoon parody of human greed and cruelty as our president - by choice. Many things have gone horribly wrong if you can't recognize how utterly stupid that is.

  7. IP? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    Trump will sell them a few airports shortly, they already bought a few ports.

  8. We epitomize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Selling them the rope they will use to hang us.

    That is literally what America has done, and now after they've all gotten their paydays from ignoring it from so long all of a sudden they want to shout out 'takesies backsies!' as though we will magically regain our former level of dominion so we can maintain our almost century long hubris (longer really, but the current hubris is mostly post-WW2 due to aging out.)

    Anyone who thinks china lacks creativity or the research mindpower necessary to eclipse us, hasn't paid enough attention to both foreign and american patents dating back to the early 20th century (probably farther, but that is as far back as I've seen documented and photographed examples). The dragon is awakening for its second dominion over the world and as much as the US would like to imagine itself as a tiger, it is most akin to a rooster... with its head cut off.

    Repeal the 3 term laws and let us see if our leader elect for life Trump can dig us out of this hole, hopefully by privatizing all state and federal land in the US and carefully selling it to those chinesy bearded guys in nice silks who promise to make payment long time :)

    captcha was 'bickers': as in 'congress bickers over which part of America to sell off next, having long ago sold off production of American flags, except in Minnesota.' :D

  9. Pot and kettle, and all that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be happy China is sending tens of thousands of people on H1B visas every year to build and carry your tech sector for you. It's hilarious how you complain that these people are actually allowed to retain their knowledge they shared with you, after they return home.

  10. Not the recipe, the process by DrYak · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no secret to making "cola" {...} The Chinese did not learn to make cola by "stealing" Coke's "secret recipe".

    What the above poster is trying to tell about is not the actual recipe of Coke's own spin on cola-based caffeined drinks.
    (The recipe isn't actually that much a secret. e.g.: In several markets, local food and beverage law require the content to be explicitly stated on the label).

    What is the key matter is that the Chinese owners of the outsourced manufacturing plant will analyse the *process* of manufacturing - i.e.: the methodology used by Coke to produce their drinks at industrial scale.
    And that's the thing they can better : making a manufacturing plant better and more efficient at producing soda drinks.

    To quote the relevant part :

    The Chinese company then spent 10 years studying Cocoa Cola's products, workflow, supply chain, and so on until they understood it better than Cocoa Cola.

    To make a much beloved /. car analogy :
    they didn't copy the general concept of making a metal can box with 4 wheels and a motor on it.
    they looked at how Ford's specific own-invented Ford process to mass-produce cars, they'll look into the basic feature sets that seem to interest customers and that manufacturer seem to concentrate on (everyone wants extra features like radio and cup holders)
    then they'll get good at making not so bad knock-offs at a smaller price and craptastic "only in shape" copies, that sell at a fraction of the price but still somehow hold together long enough for the customer to buy them and only break down later on the way home.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      China has yet to mass-produce a car Americans will buy, except one designed by someone else. Otherwise they would have brought one over here by now. Every year, the press says "this may be the year" and then it never is. With that said, this may be the year :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Not the recipe, the process by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The US market is explicitly protectionist. Once one Chinese maker spends the billions to enter the US market, the rest will follow, whether separately or as sub-brands of the first. Though the names of the Chinese makers are generally horrible. No cowboy wants to drive around the ranch in a "Chery" or SAIC. They'd do better buying the Datsun brand from Nissan, or buying up a disused American make, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... a make clearly owned by a single person, that could be bought by a Chinese company and resurrected.

      The Chinese understand the products well, but not the marketing it would take to make them work in the US.

    3. Re:Not the recipe, the process by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's Coke's manufacturing process really a secret or even particularly innovative? They are far from the only big beverage manufacturer, and much of the technology is made by industrial process experts rather than developed in-house.

      I can't really see much of a barrier to a western company simply hiring some ex-Coke employees and learning their "secrets". The thing that stops it happening is the vast amount of money required to set up a factory and distribution network at that scale, and the difficulty of entering an already saturated market.

      The Chinese are actually very advanced in distribution, so these days it's often the west learning from them. But really this idea that everything has to be kept secret or will be instantly cloned is silly - if your business can be cloned and replaced that easily then it has bigger problems, most of them coming from local competition.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US market is explicitly protectionist.

      Somebody should tell that to Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Kia, Hyndai, VW, Audi, BMW, Fiat, Nissan...I'm probably missing a few others.

      Now, my belief why China can't penetrate the US car market is quite simple. They insist on manufacturing in China, and shipping cars is expensive. Really expensive. You just can't produce at a low enough price point while still meeting safety standards to make up for the cost of the shipping. All companies who are successful in the car market in the US manufacture somewhere in North America.

    5. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Volvos sold in the US are made in China, but it is indeed not yet very common, partly because US protectionism makes importing cars from China relatively expensive and partly because labour in the US and Mexico (which is part of the same trade zone) is already relatively cheap. It's also fair to add that US-made cars aren't very popular overseas either.

    6. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Somebody should tell that to Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Kia, Hyndai, VW, Audi, BMW, Fiat, Nissan...I'm probably missing a few others.

      They already know that, which is why they build most of the cars they sell in the US in North America.

      Now, my belief why China can't penetrate the US car market is quite simple. They insist on manufacturing in China, and shipping cars is expensive. Really expensive. You just can't produce at a low enough price point while still meeting safety standards to make up for the cost of the shipping. All companies who are successful in the car market in the US manufacture somewhere in North America.

      Shipping is not that expensive, but it does add a couple of weeks to the delivery time if a car has to come from far. It is also only worth the expense if the numbers are relatively small or if you are shipping from a low-wage country to a high-wage country. Car manufacturers all over the world export their cars overseas. There is no reason why China couldn't do it if it made sense. They probably don't think it would be profitable for them at the moment. They seem more focused on their home market and the surrounding region. Just like American car manufacturers.

    7. Re:Not the recipe, the process by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      (The recipe isn't actually that much a secret. e.g.: In several markets, local food and beverage law require the content to be explicitly stated on the label).

      And in practically every market, you have to disclose the ingredients. But knowing the ingredients doesn't give you the recipe - it just gets you what goes into the recipe. You don't know quantities, relationships between ingredients, what gets combined with what and cooked at what temperature and for how long (process).

      The basic ingredients on a can of Coke will, in the right proportions get you to a cola perhaps (or not). but a lot of the time the secret's in the production process.

    8. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has yet to mass-produce a car Americans will buy, except one designed by someone else

      I hear you bro, I find it even more disturbing that Americans happily snap up 60 year old mass-produced Chinese designed airplanes.

    9. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recipe isn't actually that much a secret. e.g.: In several markets, local food and beverage law require the content to be explicitly stated on the label

      Content != Recipe.
      I can take flour, sugar, and eggs, but unless I know what I'm doing, I won't end up with a cake.

    10. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese are actually very advanced in distribution, so these days it's often the west learning from them.

      Yes and no. China currently exists in the 21st, 20th and 19th centuries.
      Nobody is going to learn about ice cream distribution to remote locations from them.

    11. Re: Not the recipe, the process by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Not really. The loophole is "flavour" and "spice" to protect trade secrets. It's not mandatory, AFAIK. I quick google searches says potential allergy ingredients need to be declared but not a bunch of general ingredients.

    12. Re: Not the recipe, the process by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      What markets explicitly require every ingredient and quantity? An example label would be nice. At the Mexican resorts I vacation, one of the ingredients is concentrated cola. I can see that easily defeating some disclosure requirement and protecting the formula.

    13. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Buick Envision, made in China (by GM) and imported by GM?

    14. Re:Not the recipe, the process by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like Fiat? Who left the US market and re-entered by buying Chrysler, because that's cheaper than setting up new?

      The only modern make on your list is Hyundai, entered the US market in 1987. Though you should have included Kia, who entered more recently, selling more than 1M cars a year before it was worth even attempting to enter the US. And Toyota, VW, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Honda and others make or recently made cars in North America. So they got around protection by making cars in the US, as the explicit protectionism intended. Toyota and others entered US manufacturing to make pickups to avoid a 25% chicken tax.

      Yes there are Ferrari and others that are unusual, but almost all of them have sold globally before recent tariffs (like the 1963 Chicken Tax). And many who were in the US left, as barriers were erected. Citroen left, and has considered re-entering, but has been unable to do so.

      It doesn't help that the US waits for the EU and others to set safety standards, then makes new standards for US only that are incompatible with anywhere else, so no "world car" is possible. At best, a car can be made to require only low cost and low effort changes. If the US worked hard to unify safety standards with the others (EU, Japan, and Australia, off which most others use or are based on), then the price of cars would drop, and safety would increase. But profits are more important than safety. So protection we have.

    15. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Some Volvos sold in the US are made in China, but it is indeed not yet very common, partly because US protectionism makes importing cars from China relatively expensive

      5% is not expensive. We have to pay 25% to ship a car over there. Chinese protectionism makes American protectionism look quaint. We do still have the chicken tax, but you didn't say anything about light trucks. Also, nothing prevents the Chinese from building plants here to build vehicles for our market, but we can't build plants there to build vehicles for their market. We have to partner with one of their corporations.

      Protectionism is absolutely not the reason we haven't seen Chinese cars here yet. Everyone, including American companies, has to meet the same standards for a new vehicle. Even most European cars aren't capable of passing our small offset crash test, yet. USDM cars are provably safer than those in any other market.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Not the recipe, the process by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      It's Coke's manufacturing process really a secret or even particularly innovative? They are far from the only big beverage manufacturer, and much of the technology is made by industrial process experts rather than developed in-house.

      I think the issue is that due to the dual ownership of the Chinese Coke company, anything new that Coke does to become more efficient is instantly also taught to their competition, whereas, I doubt that this is reciprocal. Certainly not if the Chinese company takes all Coke knows, and all they know, and come over here and start a company in this market.

    17. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even most European cars aren't capable of passing our small offset crash test, yet. USDM cars are provably safer than those in any other market.

      so he looks at the IIHS crash tests database(2018 models) under the small offset crash test:

      Poor:
      Nissan Versa, Fiat 500, Hyundai Accent, Nissan Juke, Nissan Leaf, Jeep Patriot, Dodge Journey, Dodge Grand Caravan, Nissan Frontier

      Marginal:
      Toyota Yaris, Mitsubishi Mirage, Ford Fiesta, Kia Rio, Volkswagen Beetle, Hyundai Velostor, Chryslar 300, Chryslaer Charger (4 dr), Chryslaer Challenger (2 dr), Cadillac CTS, Volkswagen Tiguan, Jeep Wrangler, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer, Toyota 4Runner, Chevrolet Silverado, Toyota Tundra, Dodge Ram 1500

      http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings

      What car do you drive?
      You're really driving a Euro car aren't you?

    18. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5% is not expensive. We have to pay 25% to ship a car over there. Chinese protectionism makes American protectionism look quaint. We do still have the chicken tax, but you didn't say anything about light trucks.

      The US have redefined the term 'light truck' to include many cars and vans.

      Protectionism is absolutely not the reason we haven't seen Chinese cars here yet. Everyone, including American companies, has to meet the same standards for a new vehicle

      That is true everywhere in the world. However, unlike most jurisdictions, the US has a set of requirements purpusefully engineered to be different and incompatible. It is a very expensive endeavour to adapt and recertify a vehicle for the US market, despite lower safety standards and a lower overall quality expectation from car buyers, just because all requirements are ever so slightly different different and has to be certified again by US agencies. This has the result that US car buyers usually have fewer models and options to choose from.

      Even most European cars aren't capable of passing our small offset crash test, yet. USDM cars are provably safer than those in any other market.

      The exact opposite has been shown. In fact, not a single US market vehicle (even from European manufacturers) would meet European safety standards unmodified, because unlike the rest of the world, the US insists that airbags be optimised for people not wearing seat belts, at the cost of unnecessarily harming people who do wear one.

    19. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, that link should have been this one.

    20. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What car do you drive?
      You're really driving a Euro car aren't you?

      I am, and it's old. I have a 1998 Audi A8 Quattro. It was the first luxury sedan to get five stars on the crash test of its day, though, and there have been several well-publicized high-speed crashes that all occupants walked away from. However, there are many models which are not offered here specifically because they won't pass a crash test.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That is true everywhere in the world. However, unlike most jurisdictions, the US has a set of requirements purpusefully engineered to be different and incompatible.

      Oh yeah? Point at one which makes a significant difference. Most of them are things like requiring yellow side reflectors in corner markers. Not a big deal; just have the OE omit the yellow reflector from the Rest-of-World corner markers.

      The exact opposite has been shown.

      I'm not fixing the URL you destroyed there, sport.

      In fact, not a single US market vehicle (even from European manufacturers) would meet European safety standards unmodified, because unlike the rest of the world, the US insists that airbags be optimised for people not wearing seat belts, at the cost of unnecessarily harming people who do wear one.

      If you sit properly in your seat, it won't harm you. A lot of people seem to have trouble with that, though. Learn to adjust your seat, and don't buy a vehicle which you don't fit in.

      Also, not planning for people who do stupid things is stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, there are many models which are not offered here specifically because they won't pass a crash test.

      If they don't pass a crash test they can't be sold in most other developed nations either.

    23. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If they don't pass a crash test they can't be sold in most other developed nations either.

      They won't pass our crash tests, which are the most stringent in the entire world, bar none. They will pass most everyone else's crash tests, which are inferior. We also have some of the world's tightest emissions requirements; some other nations are a little more strict than we are on gasoline, but no one is as strict on diesel emissions. (Some nations have made noises about banning them entirely, but nobody has actually done it yet.)

      But since the requirements are the same whether a vehicle is imported or developed domestically, they're still not protectionist.

      The chicken tax is protectionist, but that only stops cargo vehicles and pickups. It doesn't explain the dearth of other types of vehicle coming here from China. The Chinese sell their cars into other countries.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't pass our crash tests, which are the most stringent in the entire world, bar none.

      stringent my ass

      What good are "our crash tests, which are the most stringent in the entire world, bar none" when even if you fail, you can still be sold to consumers?

    25. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true everywhere in the world. However, unlike most jurisdictions, the US has a set of requirements purpusefully engineered to be different and incompatible.

      Oh yeah? Point at one which makes a significant difference. Most of them are things like requiring yellow side reflectors in corner markers. Not a big deal; just have the OE omit the yellow reflector from the Rest-of-World corner markers.

      It's not a single major difference. It's that every single thing is different, requiring a substantial fraction of the parts to be modified and every single one recertified by a different standards body to a largely comparable, but different standard.

      I'm not fixing the URL you destroyed there, sport.

      Good, because you don't have to. Just click on the I corrected link I put there long before your reply.

      If you sit properly in your seat, it won't harm you. A lot of people seem to have trouble with that, though. Learn to adjust your seat, and don't buy a vehicle which you don't fit in.

      Also, not planning for people who do stupid things is stupid.

      Needlessly injuring the other 99% of people because 1% are stupid is very stupid.

    26. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't pass our crash tests, which are the most stringent in the entire world, bar none. They will pass most everyone else's crash tests, which are inferior. We also have some of the world's tightest emissions requirements; some other nations are a little more strict than we are on gasoline, but no one is as strict on diesel emissions.

      We were talking about US crash tests, not yours, which are apparantly superior to even European crash tests. It's also great that you are so strict on diesel emissions, but the US isn't. They are just very strict on NOx and lax on everything else, both for petrol and diesel (which they don't distinguish). Oh, and they have this nice exemption for cars that are arbitrarily redefined as 'small trucks'.

      But since the requirements are the same whether a vehicle is imported or developed domestically, they're still not protectionist.

      Of course they are. They are different in order to give car makers that have their product line centred around the US market an advantage.

      The chicken tax is protectionist, but that only stops cargo vehicles and pickups. It doesn't explain the dearth of other types of vehicle coming here from China. The Chinese sell their cars into other countries.

      The Chinese also sell their vehicles in the US. Some Volvo, Buick and Cadillac models sold in the US are imported from China. Ford is also moving some US market production to China.

    27. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not a single major difference. It's that every single thing is different, requiring a substantial fraction of the parts to be modified and every single one recertified by a different standards body to a largely comparable, but different standard.

      There are two kinds of standards required to sell a car in the US: the actual crash test, and then all the various safety standards which specify the height of headlights and belt lines, etc etc. The dimensional standards or ones just like them are rapidly being adopted by other countries, but we got there first and if those standards are different, it is 100% not our fault. They could have adopted our standards. As for the crash test, they either pass it or they don't, and our requirements are simply more stringent.

      Now, here's the part that will apparently shock and amaze you: Even cars designed and built here in the USA are designed to be sold all over the world. Very few vehicles are only sold here in America. So American automakers have to deal with precisely the same kind of problems you're complaining about everyone else having to deal with if they want to sell a car here. Again, there is no difference there whatsoever.

      Needlessly injuring the other 99% of people because 1% are stupid is very stupid.

      Sit in your seat properly, and the airbag won't harm you. It's not the automakers' fault if you can't sit correctly. I believe I covered this previously.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What good are "our crash tests, which are the most stringent in the entire world, bar none" when even if you fail, you can still be sold to consumers?

      That's not how it works. You can fail the insurance industry's test, but you can't fail the certification tests. The insurance industry's tests are still more stringent than the US' certification tests.

      Might as well respond to the sibling comment here, too:

      The Chinese also sell their vehicles in the US. Some Volvo, Buick and Cadillac models sold in the US are imported from China. Ford is also moving some US market production to China.

      Those are not the Chinese's vehicles. Those are our vehicles (and Sweden's) which are being built in China. China has long tried and failed to design and build vehicles of that quality on their own, and they have never been able to do either. They have always needed help to do both of those things. Like I said, maybe they have it worked out now, GAC (which makes the Trumpchi brand) is talking about bringing a cheap premium SUV over here and it looks about good enough to sell into this market, if it can pass a crash test and meet emissions restrictions. But historically, the Chinese have struggled to make a decent vehicle on their own, and it remains to be seen whether that GAC SUV is a worthy competitor or a pile of junk.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you're the one that proclaimed most European cars can't pass IIHS small offset crash test.
      Now you backtracked saying the government don't give a shit about small offset crash test...ergo we got a bunch of unsafe vehicles driving on American highways and byways.

      Which make irrelevant your previous claim:

      They won't pass our crash tests, which are the most stringent in the entire world, bar none.

      Even looking at the list of failed vehicles above, most are GM/Ford/Chrysler/Japanese. If anything the Europeans have better mastery of vehicle safety.

      China has long tried and failed to design and build vehicles of that quality on their own

      GM/Ford/Chrysler/Japanese sell their fail share of death traps here right now.
      Japanese and Korean vehicles were considered cheap imitations (which they actually were) when they first arrived. They improved slightly since then I was told.

    30. Re:Not the recipe, the process by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even looking at the list of failed vehicles above, most are GM/Ford/Chrysler/Japanese. If anything the Europeans have better mastery of vehicle safety.

      It might look that way, if you think it's valid to ignore all the vehicles that nobody bothered to crash test in the USA because they knew they would not even begin to pass the crash tests. But only a total idiot would think that, someone who was really reaching to try to make a point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quote>if you think it's valid to ignore all the vehicles that nobody bothered to crash test in the USA because they knew they would not even begin to pass the crash tests

      You might want to dispel evidence of your idiocy by explaining who is "they".

    32. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you think it's valid to ignore all the vehicles that nobody bothered to crash test in the USA because they knew they would not even begin to pass the crash tests

      You might want to dispel evidence of your idiocy by explaining who is "they".

    33. Re:Not the recipe, the process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alright let's try this again

      if you think it's valid to ignore all the vehicles that nobody bothered to crash test in the USA because they knew they would not even begin to pass the crash tests

      You might want to dispel evidence of your idiocy by explaining who is "they".

  11. anex mexco and anex canada by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    at least when stuff was made in mexco it was no red china with there soft IP laws.

  12. Did The Senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just admit that cell phones are "our surveillance technology"?

  13. Never mind the Russians by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Never mind the Russians trying to undermine the duly elected government of the United States with the assistance of a national political party. Let's pay attention to the Chinese instead.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Never mind the Russians by forkfail · · Score: 4, Funny

      Eurasia is, and has always been, our friend and ally! Eastasia is, and has always been, our enemy!

      --
      Check your premises.
    2. Re: Never mind the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought we were at war with Eurasia!!!

    3. Re:Never mind the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by spending just a few tousand $$ in FB ads, it is possible to change the outcome of your president election .. I have pitty of your "wonderfull democracy" (supposed to be an exemple for the rest of the world)..
      Poor America!...

    4. Re:Never mind the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah damn those Ruskies and their insurance policies.

  14. So the subtext says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We (insert 3 letter agency here) are concerned the world will use Chinese developed telecom. technologies and equipment at which point we won't be able to easily spy on everyone's conversations.

  15. They like IP? by houghi · · Score: 2

    The way they treat IP, I think it will be in better hands than what the US is doing with it. Midn you, I am eneither Chinese nor USian, so I will get screwed no matter what (alas not by a female).

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  16. from the no-s--t-sherlock dept. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    For years companies offshore tech to China and provide nice campaign contributions to politicians, now these people are crying foul.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  17. Fixed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm worried about the close relationship between the American government and American technology firms". There. I fixed it.

  18. Richard Burr - Head of Senate FUD committee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And on the other side of the world?

    "counterintelligence and information security risks that come prepackaged with the goods and services of certain overseas vendors. The focus of my concern today is the USA, and specifically US software (companies) like Microsoft, Apple and Google that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the US government,"

    Grow up Senator Burr. Stop trying to scare people and get a real job.

  19. Tu quoque by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    The US also has its computer hardware, software, and other technologies being used in China. Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc., also have extraordinarily close relationships with the US government, e.g. They all make a handsome profit selling surveillance data and analysis services to US security agencies and other allied countries. Meanwhile the NSA, CIA, and FBI are working tirelessly to make US software less secure and more vulnerable to malicious attacks more than ever before. If anything's a threat to national security, it's them, not the Chinese.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  20. China plays Trump like a piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting article in The Atlantic:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/trump-china/550886/
    Trump has abdicated US "soft power" everywhere just as China builds up its own global influence.

    By showering him with perks (21-gun salute, banquet in the Forbidden City, etc.), China is treating Trump just as his casinos do to gamblers by encouraging them to continue to lose money.

  21. The problem with fake assets. by ewibble · · Score: 2

    The whole concept of owning IP shipping manufacturing overseas is flawed. IP is a made up asset that can be removed at any time with no effort the part China. All they have to do is say they won't follow US patent and copyright law an they have all the manufacturing capabilities and all the intellectual property. What exactly can the US do about it?

    That is the problem with made up assets they can just as easily be unmade.

  22. Room 641A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA#1! USA#1! USA#1!

    Fucking Amerikuks.. war is over, you lost. The future belongs to chinks because you have no moral fibre. Bravo.

  23. Re: Chink spies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be happy for ugly smelly mainlander chinks coming to my country?

    NIP CHONG TINY DINGDONG
    ALL ROOK SAEM

  24. BUILD A WALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to build a wall and have China pay for it!
    Oh, forgot - they already did that.
    Never mind.

  25. I was with you until by rsilvergun · · Score: 1
    this part:

    then they'll get good at making not so bad knock-offs at a smaller price and craptastic "only in shape" copies, that sell at a fraction of the price but still somehow hold together long enough for the customer to buy them and only break down later on the way home.

    They don't figure out how to make junk. It starts out as junk because it takes time to fully copy a complex process. Before you know it their stuff is better. This is exactly what happened to US radio manufactures experienced with the Japanese. Of course it helped that the Japanese subsidized their local industry to compete with ours too. More or less the same thing happened with US auto makers. And just recently the Chinese have starting making pens that compete with the best from Germany.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  26. I don't think this matters by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to the folks who are really in charge. They're not bound by country any more. They've got world wide investments. They global, not local.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. The irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is worried about another country stealing private data and intellectual property through their technology firms. Does it get any more ironic than that?

  28. Locking The Barn Door After The Horses Are Gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You !@#$ morons are TWO DECADES TOO LATE.

    And you gloss right over how Israel did the SAME !@#$ THING for the two decades BEFORE China even got STARTED.

    We're in this mess because you and your pals schemed to get ahead in government, at the expense of other, better people. You destroyed them and took their place. You claimed the glory - and looted the job, too.

    With power comes responsibility.

    YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. YOU WANTED TO BE THE LEADER. And, here we are.

    Don't come whining to us to fix it.

    The best thing the H1-B-loving US Congress could do would be to commit seppuku, en masse, so we can start over, with a clean slate.

  29. China versus Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia:
    Look, imperialistic cars have cup-holders.
    How do we put cup-holders in our cars?
    We'll steal the answer from those imperialist dogs.
    How do we make a machine that makes cup-holders?

    China:
    Look, decadent cars have cup-holders.
    How do we put cup-holders in our cars?
    We'll ask those decadent mongrels.
    Look, they sent us the plans for a machine to make cup-holders.

    The US gave away their IP a long time ago and it saved the Chinese a lot of time in learning to compete with the USA.

    ... commercialization of our surveillance technology and efforts to shape telecommunications equipment markets ...

    So a) The USA doesn't like China being a market leader in telecommunications technology; b) The USA doesn't like the Chinese using US technology for surveillance; c) The USA doesn't like China using (a) and )(b) to surveill US citizens.

  30. The Way it Goes by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    When counties are looking to modernize they take a lax view of the IP in other countries. As it reaches the state of the art for the day and starts to push the boundaries then they will respect IP rights as they will want theirs respected. Eventually China will become a leader in pushing their IP protection onto other countries. This is quite a while off but it will happen. The US has gone through these stages, ignoring the IP of British companies when the US was trying to build up it's manufacturing base. But I guess what's good for the US isn't good for others especially when what is being talked about is the voluntary transfer of IP to China by US companies. Nobody is forcing them to enter the Chinese market and hand over their IP.

  31. 10 years too late by ne7minder · · Score: 1

    Would have been nice if the government and private companies had thought of this 10 years ago. It is now too late and companies have little choice but to give China whatever it wants for free.