6 ms·

I honestly think the China IP rip off is overblown, and this is coming from someone who works there often. Also, if open source software has demonstrated, seque

I honestly think the China IP rip off is overblown, and this is coming from someone who works there often. Also, if open source software has demonstrated, sequestering IP behind patents is a hindrance to society. And your critique about civil rights abuses could equally be leveled against the US itself. After all, we put several immigrant children in concentration camps on the daily because they just want to move to the US. It could be argued that we've already given up so much manufacturing to foreign entities that trying to get it back is just too costly for most businesses to handle.

bayareanative 7y ago
Chips are different because it costs more to reverse/reengineer them, but once engineered (or copied) for manufacturing, it's trivial to make more. Software and physical design is more difficult to control.
scohesc 7y ago
Not related to OP, but I think every country has the right to stop illegal immigration into their country - the US has been warning everyone numerous times and have said illegal migrants will be put into these places while they get processed and/or deported. These people made a choice to try and take the easy path for a better life, through methods that are less-than-ideal for the host country. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they're going to get it. Also, your definition is quite different from the original definition of concentration camps, where people were forced against their will to be put on trains like cattle and hauled to camps to be systematically worked to death and slaughtered en masse. China is quite literally doing what happened less than a century ago during WW2 and the rest of the world is doing nothing about it because China has an absolutely massive stranglehold on the worlds economy.
- Nokinside 7y ago
  You are confusing concentration camps and extermination camps. In Nazi Germany many but not all concentration camps were also extermination camps. Historians generally agree that US has now concentration camps in their original meaning. Separating children from their parents into inhuman concentration camp is a crime against humanity.
  - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    We get it, you hate Blonald Blumpf. You can go back to reddit now.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  >Also, your definition is quite different from the original definition of concentration camps, You mean the ones the British used in the Boer wars? And that's just the earliest ones I know of, I'm sure sequestering your enemies into tiny areas with inadequate resources is as old as society itself
bassman9000 7y ago
Finest whataboutism. And with the demonstrably false concentration camps story, no less.
- secondary 7y ago
  How is that story demonstrably false? Can you point to an article that demonstrates that?
  - xenocyon 7y ago
    I've noticed some folks are unhappy with the term 'concentration camp' but academics and historians largely consider it historically accurate: https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-immigrants-detention-centers-southern-border-experts-1445483 https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentrat...
    - bassman9000 7y ago
      Newsweek: the ones that won't quote 'concentration camp' when bashing the US, but will gladly so when talking about China: https://www.newsweek.com/xinjiang-uyghur-crisis-muslim-china-1398782 https://www.newsweek.com/xinjiang-uyghur-crisis-muslim-china... No, thanks.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
wahern 7y ago
> I honestly think the China IP rip off is overblown, and this is coming from someone who works there often. You wouldn't be the first person with real experience working in China making that point. From everything I've read the IP issue is way overblown. There are some high-profile cases but in general it seems to be used as a convenient cudgel for other purposes. AFAICT the real issue working in China is that it's a communist country, heavily bureaucratic with byzantine and entirely unfamiliar legal systems and business networks that almost everybody else, including to a lesser degree other East Asian countries, find very challenging to navigate. Even corruption works differently there. Because it's a communist country power and influence flow in unexpected ways even when everything is above board. The upshot is that even when criticisms about China are reasonable, they're kinda beside the point because they're not the principle reason companies find it difficult to operate there. Even when the Chinese government wholly cooperates with a reform measure--passes and earnestly applies a law--things invariably go sideways for outsiders.
- hurrdurr2 7y ago
  Good points, the other issue that I rarely see discussed is the fact that the communist party in china is not some monolithic entity that all try to carry out the orders of Xi. Xi has tried very hard to stamp out any dissent via his "anti-corruption drive", but it still exists. There are various factions vying for power behind the scenes, some ally themselves with Xi, and some do not and are simply biding their time & waiting for Xi to screw up and "lose face".
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  The weakness Of rule of law is a common criticism raised against China, which is a huge reason foreign companies (and foreigners) have difficulties being in China.
  - wahern 7y ago
    And yet reading sites like China Law Blog, https://www.chinalawblog.com/ https://www.chinalawblog.com/, I don't get the impression that the rule of law is especially problematic, per se. For example, AFAICT few people say that China doesn't take enforcement of trademark protections seriously. The procedures for redress and enforcement exist and applied fairly. But navigating the administrative state can be confusing and cause people to trip over the technicalities. Some of the stories I've read from the blog above detail situations where Chinese partners or workers used the legal system against foreigners in very surprising but arguably fair manners. Much like the U.S., if you want to protect your rights you really need to make sure to employ vigilant lawyers who can foresee potential problems. The U.S. is large enough that there's been little pressure to address issues of regulatory and procedural uniformity relative to the rest of the world (e.g. civil law countries). China is similar in that regard. What's different is that China's systems are almost wholly unique and far more complex, whereas the legal systems for almost all Westernized nations, including Japan, have a pedigree that can be traced back to Western Europe, if not ancient Rome. China has been adopting American-style legal rules and norms for commercial law, including common law rules about case precedent. That helps further the rule of law and, more importantly, provides processes more familiar to foreigners, but it also adds yet another dimension of complexity. To use communism as an example, again, consider that American tripartite system of government--legislative, administrative, judicial--can create substantial complexity relative to a small, autocratic state.[1] In China the Communist Party is another pillar of governance in addition to those other three, multiplying complexity. And China has a federal system much like that in America. So just because things are confusing and seemingly haphazard doesn't mean that they actually are. I mean, China has had a robust and effective administrative state for millennia. IMO much of the perception of China as chaotic and full of cheaters is self-serving. And to the extent it's correct, I think it says at least as much about the limitations the central government faces than about their lack of desire or will to do anything about it. If we don't appreciate that than we're simply going to frustrate ourselves with demands and expectations that are misinformed and unreasonable. [1] For example, in the U.S. using a judicial judgment to induce a government agency to do or abstain from something can be challenging and expensive. We maintain especially rigid separation between the judiciary and executive for good reasons--reasons directly related to our conception and experience of rule of law--but that does not necessarily translate into efficiency or even consistency.

bayareanative 7y ago

Chips are different because it costs more to reverse/reengineer them, but once engineered (or copied) for manufacturing, it's trivial to make more. Software and physical design is more difficult to control.

scohesc 7y ago

Not related to OP, but I think every country has the right to stop illegal immigration into their country - the US has been warning everyone numerous times and have said illegal migrants will be put into these places while they get processed and/or deported. These people made a choice to try and take the easy path for a better life, through methods that are less-than-ideal for the host country. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they're going to get it. Also, your definition is quite different from the original definition of concentration camps, where people were forced against their will to be put on trains like cattle and hauled to camps to be systematically worked to death and slaughtered en masse. China is quite literally doing what happened less than a century ago during WW2 and the rest of the world is doing nothing about it because China has an absolutely massive stranglehold on the worlds economy.

Nokinside 7y ago
You are confusing concentration camps and extermination camps. In Nazi Germany many but not all concentration camps were also extermination camps. Historians generally agree that US has now concentration camps in their original meaning. Separating children from their parents into inhuman concentration camp is a crime against humanity.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
  We get it, you hate Blonald Blumpf. You can go back to reddit now.
mrguyorama 7y ago
>Also, your definition is quite different from the original definition of concentration camps, You mean the ones the British used in the Boer wars? And that's just the earliest ones I know of, I'm sure sequestering your enemies into tiny areas with inadequate resources is as old as society itself

bassman9000 7y ago

Finest whataboutism. And with the demonstrably false concentration camps story, no less.

secondary 7y ago
How is that story demonstrably false? Can you point to an article that demonstrates that?
- xenocyon 7y ago
  I've noticed some folks are unhappy with the term 'concentration camp' but academics and historians largely consider it historically accurate: https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-immigrants-detention-centers-southern-border-experts-1445483 https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentrat...
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    Newsweek: the ones that won't quote 'concentration camp' when bashing the US, but will gladly so when talking about China: https://www.newsweek.com/xinjiang-uyghur-crisis-muslim-china-1398782 https://www.newsweek.com/xinjiang-uyghur-crisis-muslim-china... No, thanks.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

wahern 7y ago

> I honestly think the China IP rip off is overblown, and this is coming from someone who works there often. You wouldn't be the first person with real experience working in China making that point. From everything I've read the IP issue is way overblown. There are some high-profile cases but in general it seems to be used as a convenient cudgel for other purposes. AFAICT the real issue working in China is that it's a communist country, heavily bureaucratic with byzantine and entirely unfamiliar legal systems and business networks that almost everybody else, including to a lesser degree other East Asian countries, find very challenging to navigate. Even corruption works differently there. Because it's a communist country power and influence flow in unexpected ways even when everything is above board. The upshot is that even when criticisms about China are reasonable, they're kinda beside the point because they're not the principle reason companies find it difficult to operate there. Even when the Chinese government wholly cooperates with a reform measure--passes and earnestly applies a law--things invariably go sideways for outsiders.

hurrdurr2 7y ago
Good points, the other issue that I rarely see discussed is the fact that the communist party in china is not some monolithic entity that all try to carry out the orders of Xi. Xi has tried very hard to stamp out any dissent via his "anti-corruption drive", but it still exists. There are various factions vying for power behind the scenes, some ally themselves with Xi, and some do not and are simply biding their time & waiting for Xi to screw up and "lose face".
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
The weakness Of rule of law is a common criticism raised against China, which is a huge reason foreign companies (and foreigners) have difficulties being in China.
- wahern 7y ago
  And yet reading sites like China Law Blog, https://www.chinalawblog.com/ https://www.chinalawblog.com/, I don't get the impression that the rule of law is especially problematic, per se. For example, AFAICT few people say that China doesn't take enforcement of trademark protections seriously. The procedures for redress and enforcement exist and applied fairly. But navigating the administrative state can be confusing and cause people to trip over the technicalities. Some of the stories I've read from the blog above detail situations where Chinese partners or workers used the legal system against foreigners in very surprising but arguably fair manners. Much like the U.S., if you want to protect your rights you really need to make sure to employ vigilant lawyers who can foresee potential problems. The U.S. is large enough that there's been little pressure to address issues of regulatory and procedural uniformity relative to the rest of the world (e.g. civil law countries). China is similar in that regard. What's different is that China's systems are almost wholly unique and far more complex, whereas the legal systems for almost all Westernized nations, including Japan, have a pedigree that can be traced back to Western Europe, if not ancient Rome. China has been adopting American-style legal rules and norms for commercial law, including common law rules about case precedent. That helps further the rule of law and, more importantly, provides processes more familiar to foreigners, but it also adds yet another dimension of complexity. To use communism as an example, again, consider that American tripartite system of government--legislative, administrative, judicial--can create substantial complexity relative to a small, autocratic state.[1] In China the Communist Party is another pillar of governance in addition to those other three, multiplying complexity. And China has a federal system much like that in America. So just because things are confusing and seemingly haphazard doesn't mean that they actually are. I mean, China has had a robust and effective administrative state for millennia. IMO much of the perception of China as chaotic and full of cheaters is self-serving. And to the extent it's correct, I think it says at least as much about the limitations the central government faces than about their lack of desire or will to do anything about it. If we don't appreciate that than we're simply going to frustrate ourselves with demands and expectations that are misinformed and unreasonable. [1] For example, in the U.S. using a judicial judgment to induce a government agency to do or abstain from something can be challenging and expensive. We maintain especially rigid separation between the judiciary and executive for good reasons--reasons directly related to our conception and experience of rule of law--but that does not necessarily translate into efficiency or even consistency.