6 ms·

The difference between patent trolls and protecting capital intensive IP for a "head start" to get to market are so hugely different. It's not a difference in p

The difference between patent trolls and protecting capital intensive IP for a "head start" to get to market are so hugely different. It's not a difference in perspective. It's a harmful act of laziness.

monocasa 7y ago
I've heard that what was stolen was mainly internal documentation on how the engines comply with the various regulatory frameworks, which were designed around the specific Western families of engines that existed and evolved with them. If that's all true and China was more than capable of building an engine with the same performance and safety as their Western counterparts, but simply wouldn't have been certified due to not being a slight variation of an existing design, would that change your judgment?
- bpodgursky 7y ago
  Given that China has struggled to produce a jet engine even for _military_ uses, which is in no way hindered by western regulatory frameworks, I think the burden of proof is on your side: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-air-force-has-one-big-problem-it-cant-seem-solve-34192 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-air-force-has-...
  - monocasa 7y ago
    I mean, they supposedly stole the full plans for everything related to the F22 and F35, including their engines. So, that doesn't really jive with your idea that it's lack of access to IP there. What's way more likely given all that is that Chinese companies so contract lots of the commercial engines' components, it's that putting it together and filli g in the gaps in a way that passes cert is the issue. The fighter jets engine components are starting from scratch, and being very very different designs that are much more exotic from a materials science perspective.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > I mean, they supposedly stole the full plans for everything related to the F22 and F35, including their engines. Even if that's true, plans will only tell you so much.

monocasa 7y ago

I've heard that what was stolen was mainly internal documentation on how the engines comply with the various regulatory frameworks, which were designed around the specific Western families of engines that existed and evolved with them. If that's all true and China was more than capable of building an engine with the same performance and safety as their Western counterparts, but simply wouldn't have been certified due to not being a slight variation of an existing design, would that change your judgment?

bpodgursky 7y ago
Given that China has struggled to produce a jet engine even for _military_ uses, which is in no way hindered by western regulatory frameworks, I think the burden of proof is on your side: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-air-force-has-one-big-problem-it-cant-seem-solve-34192 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-air-force-has-...
- monocasa 7y ago
  I mean, they supposedly stole the full plans for everything related to the F22 and F35, including their engines. So, that doesn't really jive with your idea that it's lack of access to IP there. What's way more likely given all that is that Chinese companies so contract lots of the commercial engines' components, it's that putting it together and filli g in the gaps in a way that passes cert is the issue. The fighter jets engine components are starting from scratch, and being very very different designs that are much more exotic from a materials science perspective.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > I mean, they supposedly stole the full plans for everything related to the F22 and F35, including their engines. Even if that's true, plans will only tell you so much.