4 ms·

The fact that we are allies with Germany and that the US probably buys a lot more from Germany than Germany buys from the US. With China, well, they are alread

by jjeaff 6y ago

The fact that we are allies with Germany and that the US probably buys a lot more from Germany than Germany buys from the US. With China, well, they are already blocking lots of American software companies so this would be more of a proportional response than anything else.

qkhhly 6y ago
proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission?
- ejanus 6y ago
  Path that is harmful and injurious to conscience and business is worse than daylight robbery.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission? The real question is, why did the West went along with that bad deal at first place and allowed China into the WTO under these conditions. It was extremely short sighted.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Because it was actually a very good deal for the West, contrary to all the gnashing of teeth one hears. China had to carry out massive economic reforms in order to join the WTO, such as the privatization or splitting up of many state-owned enterprises, large reductions in tariffs, opening up of many sectors to foreign investment, the creation of a legal system to protect IP, and much more. Moreover, China joined under unusual terms that allowed other countries to more easily retaliate against China - sort of a probationary status. Western companies did extremely well in this relationship. Much of the growth in the West over the past few decades is thanks to China's opening-up.
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    Because China was a poor country back then but had the potential to become a huge market. China was given all sorts of advantages to allow it to develop its economy on the hope that western companies could do business there. China is now a fully developed country (well, the cities are at least), yet it still retains the same economic advantages but market access is still a carrot they dangle before western companies.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  you left out the parts about having to operate via a chinese 'partner' and having to transfer your IP to that partner (full source code)
  - ptx 6y ago
    Isn't that similar to the requirements[1] placed on Huawei in the UK if they want to sell any network equipment? Everything must be inspected and overseen by GCHQ. [1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/huawei-gchq-security-evaluation-uk https://www.wired.co.uk/article/huawei-gchq-security-evaluat...
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      No, one is oversight and due diligence, the other is IP transfer so that your company can be cloned and then be given whatever resources needed from shady banks so that they can put you out of business.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      Depends, do UK companies have a long history of stealing IP from outside companies and profiting off that IP with no repercussions from the UK gov?
  - not_that_jeff 6y ago
    this is a lie. I work for AWS and directly work with the partner in China. They do not get our source code, we build supporting tools for them to operate our software. I repeat, they do not get our source code.
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      AWS must have the means to bribe the right people then. GCP does not work in China at all.
- seemack 6y ago
  Saying that the US companies chose not to obey China laws, etc is simplifying the situation dramatically in favour of China. In this case, don't the Chinese laws include a requirement for a Chinese "partner" company and obligations towards IP transfer? These requirements don't sound like a fair arrangement to me and, as far as I know, there are no comparable requirements in the US on foreign companies.
  - markus_zhang 6y ago
    At least for fb and google, not the case.
boudin 6y ago
This is not proportional at all. That you agree or not on Chinese laws is one thing, having to abide to the country laws makes sense. Being a us company doesn't grant a bypass card. To abide to an arbitrary decision based on nothing because the company is chinese is something quite different. The Chinese government would do this on Apple, for example, i'm quite sure it would create quite an outrage.
ulfw 6y ago
US buys from Germany because German products are on average better than US products. Nothing else.
kosh2 6y ago
Being allys with the US is a special thing though. Just the other day the US threatened "crushing legal and economic sanctions" against a German port for being involved in North Stream 2. "The US argues that the pipeline will increase Europe's dependence on Russia, which both Berlin and Moscow dispute. The US proposes selling European's American natural gas shipped across the Atlantic as an alternative." But a greater dependency on the US is fine of course. The, as a champion of free trade, should be happy about more competition right?

by jjeaff 6y ago

qkhhly 6y ago

proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission?

ejanus 6y ago
Path that is harmful and injurious to conscience and business is worse than daylight robbery.
throw_m239339 6y ago
> proportional? China gave a clear path forward to those companies if they want to operate in China (setting up severs in China, complying local laws, etc..) They chose not to do so and left. Did US gave any clear path how these tech companies can continue operate in the US other than selling themselves and giving the goverment a commission? The real question is, why did the West went along with that bad deal at first place and allowed China into the WTO under these conditions. It was extremely short sighted.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Because it was actually a very good deal for the West, contrary to all the gnashing of teeth one hears. China had to carry out massive economic reforms in order to join the WTO, such as the privatization or splitting up of many state-owned enterprises, large reductions in tariffs, opening up of many sectors to foreign investment, the creation of a legal system to protect IP, and much more. Moreover, China joined under unusual terms that allowed other countries to more easily retaliate against China - sort of a probationary status. Western companies did extremely well in this relationship. Much of the growth in the West over the past few decades is thanks to China's opening-up.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  Because China was a poor country back then but had the potential to become a huge market. China was given all sorts of advantages to allow it to develop its economy on the hope that western companies could do business there. China is now a fully developed country (well, the cities are at least), yet it still retains the same economic advantages but market access is still a carrot they dangle before western companies.
secondcoming 6y ago
you left out the parts about having to operate via a chinese 'partner' and having to transfer your IP to that partner (full source code)
- ptx 6y ago
  Isn't that similar to the requirements[1] placed on Huawei in the UK if they want to sell any network equipment? Everything must be inspected and overseen by GCHQ. [1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/huawei-gchq-security-evaluation-uk https://www.wired.co.uk/article/huawei-gchq-security-evaluat...
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    No, one is oversight and due diligence, the other is IP transfer so that your company can be cloned and then be given whatever resources needed from shady banks so that they can put you out of business.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Depends, do UK companies have a long history of stealing IP from outside companies and profiting off that IP with no repercussions from the UK gov?
- not_that_jeff 6y ago
  this is a lie. I work for AWS and directly work with the partner in China. They do not get our source code, we build supporting tools for them to operate our software. I repeat, they do not get our source code.
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    AWS must have the means to bribe the right people then. GCP does not work in China at all.
seemack 6y ago
Saying that the US companies chose not to obey China laws, etc is simplifying the situation dramatically in favour of China. In this case, don't the Chinese laws include a requirement for a Chinese "partner" company and obligations towards IP transfer? These requirements don't sound like a fair arrangement to me and, as far as I know, there are no comparable requirements in the US on foreign companies.
- markus_zhang 6y ago
  At least for fb and google, not the case.

boudin 6y ago

This is not proportional at all. That you agree or not on Chinese laws is one thing, having to abide to the country laws makes sense. Being a us company doesn't grant a bypass card. To abide to an arbitrary decision based on nothing because the company is chinese is something quite different. The Chinese government would do this on Apple, for example, i'm quite sure it would create quite an outrage.

ulfw 6y ago

US buys from Germany because German products are on average better than US products. Nothing else.

kosh2 6y ago

Being allys with the US is a special thing though. Just the other day the US threatened "crushing legal and economic sanctions" against a German port for being involved in North Stream 2. "The US argues that the pipeline will increase Europe's dependence on Russia, which both Berlin and Moscow dispute. The US proposes selling European's American natural gas shipped across the Atlantic as an alternative." But a greater dependency on the US is fine of course. The, as a champion of free trade, should be happy about more competition right?