4 ms·

It's especially interesting given that the U.S. model for IP is pragmatic rather than ideologic, i.e. temporary government-granted monopolies are a necessary ev

by shpxnvz 17y ago

It's especially interesting given that the U.S. model for IP is pragmatic rather than ideologic, i.e. temporary government-granted monopolies are a necessary evil we accept in order to further technological and creative progress for the benefit of all citizens. Considering the opinion many here have that innovation in the U.S. is stifled rather than encouraged under the modern politicized IP model, it might be enlightening to compare how effective innovation is under each model. I am curious how much sustained innovation is happening over there versus the highly-publicized accounts of IP 'theft'?

DougBTX 17y ago
temporary Practically speaking, copyrights are perpetual in the US. If something is copyrighted for life plus 90 years, I'm not going to see anything made during my lifetime enter the public domain naturally.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  This is true, but it was not always the case. That copyrights last so long now is the result of change due to political pressure. Even as recently as 1998 copyright was only authors life plus 50 years, and less before that.
papersmith 17y ago
Pros and cons of IP aside, the fact of the matter is that American companies have the money and talent to do high quality R&D. Most Chinese companies simply don't have the capital to do R&D to the standard of a developed country, and most talents go work for western companies that have the money. If IP laws were enforced in China, Chinese companies would be further kept at the bottom of the food chain, making cheap products in sweatshops at very low margins. The IP policies in China is meant as way to jumpstart domestic companies by letting them compete in higher-margin value-added goods when they don't have the ability to do their own research. The policy-makers know that they suck at most things, especially as a venture capitalist, so they go with the least-interfering approach. Of course, eventually they'll have to enforce IP to sustain their own R&D, once their industries mature.

by shpxnvz 17y ago

DougBTX 17y ago

temporary Practically speaking, copyrights are perpetual in the US. If something is copyrighted for life plus 90 years, I'm not going to see anything made during my lifetime enter the public domain naturally.

shpxnvz 17y ago
This is true, but it was not always the case. That copyrights last so long now is the result of change due to political pressure. Even as recently as 1998 copyright was only authors life plus 50 years, and less before that.

papersmith 17y ago

Pros and cons of IP aside, the fact of the matter is that American companies have the money and talent to do high quality R&D. Most Chinese companies simply don't have the capital to do R&D to the standard of a developed country, and most talents go work for western companies that have the money. If IP laws were enforced in China, Chinese companies would be further kept at the bottom of the food chain, making cheap products in sweatshops at very low margins. The IP policies in China is meant as way to jumpstart domestic companies by letting them compete in higher-margin value-added goods when they don't have the ability to do their own research. The policy-makers know that they suck at most things, especially as a venture capitalist, so they go with the least-interfering approach. Of course, eventually they'll have to enforce IP to sustain their own R&D, once their industries mature.