3 ms·

> - It feels like it is implying China has the moral upper hand. The same country who takes US invented products and sells them 10x cheaper under a different br

by soperj 4y ago

> - It feels like it is implying China has the moral upper hand. The same country who takes US invented products and sells them 10x cheaper under a different brand, violating international intellectual property laws. Buy Spot for $75k or Weilan's Alpha Dog or Unitree's Go for $2.5k? This is right out of the USA playbook from the the late 1700s. << Under the Patent Act of 1793, the United States barred foreign inventors from receiving patents at the same time as granting patents to Americans who had pirated technology from other countries. “America thus became, by national policy and legislative act, the world’s premier legal sanctuary for industrial pirates. Any American could bring a foreign innovation to the United States and commercialize the idea, all with total legal immunity.” >> [0] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_patent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_paten...

godelski 4y ago
I'm not sure what this comment means. The US doing something bad 200 years ago doesn't justify the bad actions of today. Either it is bad in both cases or it is okay/good in both cases. It is unclear which you are saying because I'm interpreting it as whatbaoutism. That's not productive nor in good faith. Especially referencing something that happened 200 years ago. There were a lot of bad stuff that we did 200 years ago and that doesn't matter who "we" is. Thomas Jefferson was still Secretary of State at this time. The nation was less than 20 years old. That applies to literally every country on the planet. We've all progressed. But also, this problem was resolved by 1836, when foreigners could be granted patents. Thomas Jefferson had only been dead for 10 years by this time. This is still decades before the civil war and a century before America became part of the global stage. There were only 25 US states at this time and it wasn't long after the Louisiana Purchase happened. Decades before Texas was annexed. So I'm extra confused. This comment too feels like bait because I can't find any relevance to the conversation at hand. It appears to be pure distraction and not in good faith. No one is saying America didn't do a lot of bad shit in the past (Americans are pretty open about our historical atrocities). But in absolutely no way do historical atrocities justify actions of today. I mean what, are you going to say that the Trail of Tears justifies genocide of Ughygurs or that it justifies Hitler killing the Jews? Clearly it doesn't. All these things are wrong. Now and then. One historical wrong doing in absolutely no way shape or manner justifies modern wrongdoings. Please don't astroturf.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > The US doing something bad 200 years ago doesn't justify the bad actions of today The US has always done it. It backstabbed the Brits and the French, stealing their nuclear fission research and not giving them access to Manhattan Project. It kept doing corporate spying on everyone including its allies using ECHELON. So much that a few years ago entire US State Dept. diplomat cadre were ordered to do corporate spying by the US State Dept itself.

by soperj 4y ago

godelski 4y ago

I'm not sure what this comment means. The US doing something bad 200 years ago doesn't justify the bad actions of today. Either it is bad in both cases or it is okay/good in both cases. It is unclear which you are saying because I'm interpreting it as whatbaoutism. That's not productive nor in good faith. Especially referencing something that happened 200 years ago. There were a lot of bad stuff that we did 200 years ago and that doesn't matter who "we" is. Thomas Jefferson was still Secretary of State at this time. The nation was less than 20 years old. That applies to literally every country on the planet. We've all progressed. But also, this problem was resolved by 1836, when foreigners could be granted patents. Thomas Jefferson had only been dead for 10 years by this time. This is still decades before the civil war and a century before America became part of the global stage. There were only 25 US states at this time and it wasn't long after the Louisiana Purchase happened. Decades before Texas was annexed. So I'm extra confused. This comment too feels like bait because I can't find any relevance to the conversation at hand. It appears to be pure distraction and not in good faith. No one is saying America didn't do a lot of bad shit in the past (Americans are pretty open about our historical atrocities). But in absolutely no way do historical atrocities justify actions of today. I mean what, are you going to say that the Trail of Tears justifies genocide of Ughygurs or that it justifies Hitler killing the Jews? Clearly it doesn't. All these things are wrong. Now and then. One historical wrong doing in absolutely no way shape or manner justifies modern wrongdoings. Please don't astroturf.

unity1001 4y ago
> The US doing something bad 200 years ago doesn't justify the bad actions of today The US has always done it. It backstabbed the Brits and the French, stealing their nuclear fission research and not giving them access to Manhattan Project. It kept doing corporate spying on everyone including its allies using ECHELON. So much that a few years ago entire US State Dept. diplomat cadre were ordered to do corporate spying by the US State Dept itself.