7 ms·
Because they are likely working for institutions that are committing IP theft, in this case it's better to keep them honest, they don't have a culture that resp
by pytyper2 8y ago
Because they are likely working for institutions that are committing IP theft, in this case it's better to keep them honest, they don't have a culture that respects the rules and customs of other cultures (common law, contract law).
- DennisP 8y agoWhich is also what the U.S. did for its first century or so. A lot of us think U.S. IP law has seriously overextended itself these days. I'm not sure I entirely blame China for not going along with it.
- fatjokes 8y agoYou're not wrong. I wouldn't blame the US for wanting to defend against it. I just wouldn't bother with the "morality" card vs. a simple transactional justification.
- polartx 8y agoAh yes, because Samuel Slater smuggled cotton spinner trade secrets out of England in 1789, China is justified committing IP theft today. Sound logic
- starbeast 8y agoThe definition of theft of IP is entirely a product of local jurisdiction though, given we are talking about temporary monopolies on ephemera and not physical protection of personal claims on objects or spaces.
- chmod775 8y agoNo need to go that far back. Try 2013. And unless anything changed since the Snowden revelations, the US is still conducting (or attempting to conduct) industrial espionage to this day. In some cases they were in direct violation of agreements they had with other countries concerning such espionage[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Germany
- devoply 8y agoIf Snowden revealed anything it's that there is lots of hypocrisy involved and for the most part American citizens are in line with that hypocrisy as long as it does not effect them personally. And if we see China's behavior it's in line with accounting for this hypocrisy. Sure the US calls them out on it all the time, and they can't respond to the allegations... But similarly their citizens are on board with their hypocrisy. It's a world full of liars looking to exploit however they can so they can get to the top and remain there. It's all propped up on a commonly accepted fiction, if you did a bit deeper you see all the fictions are there to support various power structures and keep them functioning. So can you blame China or the US... Not really everyone is playing the hand they were dealt the best way they know how.
- kittiepryde 8y agoI'm an American citizen and I'm not on board with the hypocrisy. Everyone should follow the rules to the best of their abilities.
- yorwba 8y agoNo, Samuel Slater smuggling trade secrets was a consequence, not a reason, of the same sound logic that also makes China ignore the IP laws of other countries: if there's a group of other people with a mutually beneficial agreement, who expect you to play by their rules without getting any of the benefits, then fuck 'em.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 8y agoThe logic is "if you've used it to become the richest nation on earth don't knock out others using it to become rich". And those that still benefit from the heads-tart due to their country/ancestors having done so, shouldn't play it holier than thou either. Not to mention the whole hypocrisy, since the US has used corporate espionage and actual spying on supposed "allies" corporations since forever and still does, plus using their military and diplomatic might to ensure cheap resources, control of trade routes, use of its currently, and bending "banana republics" to its will and installing friendly lackeys to the detriment of their peoples. Case in point, this vintage gem posted today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18683073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18683073
- pytyper2 8y agoIf he was smuggling, it was a crime then, it's a crime now.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- DennisP 8y agoIf you're referring to Slater, it was not a crime in the U.S., and explicitly legal for quite some time afterwards. See the links I posted in another comment here.
- room500 8y agoThere are many things previous generations did in the name of economic progress that we would find wrong today (slavery, child labor, etc). Times change and I should not be required to defend the morality of my ancestors. That is not hypocritical.
- zxcvvcxz 8y ago>The logic is "if you've used it to become the richest nation on earth don't knock out others using it to become rich". Cool, so you have no issues with China, India, Africa accelerating their use of fossil fuels.
- trainingaccount 8y agoWe smuggled those silkworms out of China and can make our own silk now!
- masonic 8y agoThose silkworms were slaves, and trafficked.
- DennisP 8y agoMy second paragraph is why I think China might be justified to some extent. My first paragraph was only to say that I don't think China's culture is unusually disrespectful of others.
- bsamuels 8y agoWhat kinds of IP did the US steal in its first century? Interested from a historical perspective
- polartx 8y agoIt was tech related to water powered cotton mills. In those times England had outlawed the exportation or manufacturing machinery as well as the emigration of persons with industry knowledge. Sam Slater moved to the US in 1789 and partnered with a textile manufacturer to recreate the technology from memory. (Amusingly what he did may not have even been a violation of IP law by today's standards) https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-revolution-based-trade-secret-theft/id=85377/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/07/05/americas-industrial-re...
- prewett 8y agoSamuel Slater apprenticed at a British cloth factory and memorized the design. Then he emigrated to the US and set up shop. Although, I think it might be more correct to say that the US allowed him to steal IP, rather than the country stealing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater I think that US publishers, especially sheet music publishers, would copy British music and and publish it in the US, since I don't think that the US honored British copyright (at least some subset of it), but I can't think of good search terms to find any sources.
- DennisP 8y ago"the American copyright statutes did not allow for copyright protection of foreign works for fully one century. As a result, American publishers and producers freely pirated foreign literature, art, and drama....It was not until 1891 that the Chace Act granted copyright protection to selected foreign residents." https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-copyright-in-europe-and-the-united-states/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-copyright... They started allowing non-citizens to get U.S. patents earlier: "Americans could not obtain patents for imported discoveries, but the earliest statutes of 1793, 1800 and 1832, restricted patent property to citizens or to residents who declared that they intended to become citizens. As such, while an American could not appropriate patent rights to a foreign invention, he could freely use the idea without any need to bear licensing or similar costs that would otherwise have been due if the inventor had been able to obtain a patent in this country. In 1836, the stipulations on citizenship or residency were removed, but were replaced with discriminatory patent fees: foreigners could obtain a patent in the U.S. for a fee of three hundred dollars, or five hundred if they were British. After 1861 patent rights (with the exception of caveats) were available to all applicants on the same basis without regard to nationality." https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-patent-institutions/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-patent-in...
- conistonwater 8y agoIs this just whataboutery, or can you please explain how your argument is supposed to work?
- roenxi 8y agoThat particular argument isn't really sound, because the question is one of magnitude. However it still isn't obvious why China should enforce US IP law if it doesn't want to. IP is the ultimate human creation, it has no basis in the physical world. If pretending ideas are property puts China at a disadvantage there isn't a moral or practical reason to do it.
- walexander 8y agoThere is no moral obligation for them to do so and yes they can choose not to enforce US IP law if they don't want to. The US can also choose to place massive tariffs on any goods coming out of China, making them highly uncompetitive. Their choice, it looks like.
- DennisP 8y agoIn which case China does the same thing back to us, as we've been seeing lately. Most economists think this sort of thing does more harm than good.
- reaperducer 8y agoMost economists think this sort of thing does more harm than good. Only in a hypothetical scenario where it's a battle of equals. But China has worked itself into a corner now for several reasons: 1. It imports so little from the U.S. that it's almost out of stuff to put tariffs on. 2. Most of the things it imports from the U.S. are used in manufacturing in China, and then sold back to the U.S. as a finished product. So China's own tariff makes Chinese goods more expensive and less attractive in the U.S. 3. China still needs to import a metric ass-ton of soybeans from the U.S. It tried getting them elsewhere, like Brazil, but every other soybean-growing country saw the opportunity and raised prices. So putting additional tariffs on American soybeans will make food cost more in China, and there's nothing China can do about it. I've heard there's additional pressure on China in regards to the soybean situation because harvest is already over for soybeans in the southern hemisphere. And you know who's sitting on a ton of soybeans ready for export? The U.S. I don't know enough about soybean growing cycles to say if that last paragraph is still true or accurate, though.
- HillaryBriss 8y agoin the distant past, China's silk industry tried to prevent the knowledge of silk making from spreading outside of China. and China's tea growers tried to prevent the exportation of Chinese tea plants. ultimately, neither of these efforts succeeded. but it is evidence that people and industries in China truly do understand the notion of protecting trade secrets, IP, etc.
- keldaris 8y agoEveryone understands those notions when they benefit them and everyone is quick to discard or gloss over them when they don't. It's a simple economic calculation, China just happens to be on the other end of it compared to the rest of the world - namely, the benefits of ignoring these notions outweighs the risks of antagonizing the U.S.
- chillacy 8y agoAbsolutely, people need to realize that morality usually means absolutely nothing compared to power. Might doesn’t make right but right doesn’t make might either... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
- matz1 8y agoIts a faster and effective way to catch up, it would be stupid for them not to do it.
- coughupalung 8y agoAs long as they can continue to get away with it, sure. Let's see if their greedy algorithm continues to work.
- Pica_soO 8y agoWhat if stolen IP could be law-suited into a title, giving anyone holding such a title in value of the lost profits a right to infringe on any future creation from the infringing country - in value of the same title?
- forapurpose 8y agoThe word "culture" is often used as a euphemism when stereotyping - unsupported generalizations. What exactly does it mean here, and how can you back it up? Based on my experience in the world, it couldn't be said for anyone.
- dang 8y agoPlease keep this their-culture stuff off HN. If it isn't poisonous, it certainly borders on it, and there's no good HN comment that wouldn't be better without it.