4 ms·

it's not espionage, it's a development strategy, and it's working well. it foster local knowledge, local know how and local production. the deal is: you can us

by kome 3y ago

it's not espionage, it's a development strategy, and it's working well. it foster local knowledge, local know how and local production. the deal is: you can use our cheap labor force, but we can use your ideas

nrb 3y ago
The issue appears to be when they’re not just using the ideas, but the implementations verbatim?
emptysongglass 3y ago
That's not "the deal". It's illegal. No one on either side agreed to do this and had that been part of the negotiation, the offended party would have walked away or else agreed to a higher sale price in exchange for technology transfer.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Am yes, executives of eestern firms earn billions spesifically because they are clueless about the country where they outsource production. It might nit be in the contract, but they definitely know whats going on, and they still take the deal
- xmcqdpt2 3y ago
  > It's illegal. According to who? Sovereign states have their own laws, that's what makes them sovereign. You claim that companies wouldn't have done business in China (in the times before our current Second Cold War) had they known about the lack of IP law enforcement there. I think companies who outsourced to China knew very well what was going on, and calculated that they'd still come out ahead.
  - berniedurfee 3y ago
    I agree with this. The executives that made the decision to outsource and offshore understood that near term gains would come with long term consequences, they always do. Those executives did very well by those short term gains.
  - emptysongglass 3y ago
    According to international trade law and China itself. [1] People are making absolutely wild, misinformed claims that don't belong here. Claiming executives knew what they were getting into is pure conjecture. > Sovereign states have their own laws, that's what makes them sovereign. You're making a grossly misinformed claim here. Sovereign countries also participate outside their borders and are subject to the international agreements they participate in. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_property_theft_by_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_...
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > Claiming executives knew what they were getting into is pure conjecture. Schrodinger's executive - when things go well, it's because they meticulously planned every detail. When things go wrong, suddenly they know less about their business than my grandma does. What is the cause of this habit of making up excuses for people that get massive compensation but never take any responsibility?
      - emptysongglass 3y ago
        Do you understand that the side of this argument you're representing is making excuses for internationally illegal theft as, "well they sure had it coming?"
        ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        The side you are representing was trusted with safekeeping this information. They purposefully placed it into the jurisdiction where it is frequently, systematically stolen. They clearly did this to save a few bucks. Quite reasonably, some people are asking, why do they face no accountability for this decision. You are coming up with excuses like "well they couldn't possibly be aware of information that was widely avaliable in mass media since 2010 at least. Would you accept this sort of excuse if someone was in charge of safekeeping your child and they took your kid for a walk through an area known for violence and murder?

by kome 3y ago

nrb 3y ago

The issue appears to be when they’re not just using the ideas, but the implementations verbatim?

emptysongglass 3y ago

That's not "the deal". It's illegal. No one on either side agreed to do this and had that been part of the negotiation, the offended party would have walked away or else agreed to a higher sale price in exchange for technology transfer.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Am yes, executives of eestern firms earn billions spesifically because they are clueless about the country where they outsource production. It might nit be in the contract, but they definitely know whats going on, and they still take the deal
xmcqdpt2 3y ago
> It's illegal. According to who? Sovereign states have their own laws, that's what makes them sovereign. You claim that companies wouldn't have done business in China (in the times before our current Second Cold War) had they known about the lack of IP law enforcement there. I think companies who outsourced to China knew very well what was going on, and calculated that they'd still come out ahead.
- berniedurfee 3y ago
  I agree with this. The executives that made the decision to outsource and offshore understood that near term gains would come with long term consequences, they always do. Those executives did very well by those short term gains.
- emptysongglass 3y ago
  According to international trade law and China itself. [1] People are making absolutely wild, misinformed claims that don't belong here. Claiming executives knew what they were getting into is pure conjecture. > Sovereign states have their own laws, that's what makes them sovereign. You're making a grossly misinformed claim here. Sovereign countries also participate outside their borders and are subject to the international agreements they participate in. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_property_theft_by_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_...
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Claiming executives knew what they were getting into is pure conjecture. Schrodinger's executive - when things go well, it's because they meticulously planned every detail. When things go wrong, suddenly they know less about their business than my grandma does. What is the cause of this habit of making up excuses for people that get massive compensation but never take any responsibility?
    - emptysongglass 3y ago
      Do you understand that the side of this argument you're representing is making excuses for internationally illegal theft as, "well they sure had it coming?"
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        The side you are representing was trusted with safekeeping this information. They purposefully placed it into the jurisdiction where it is frequently, systematically stolen. They clearly did this to save a few bucks. Quite reasonably, some people are asking, why do they face no accountability for this decision. You are coming up with excuses like "well they couldn't possibly be aware of information that was widely avaliable in mass media since 2010 at least. Would you accept this sort of excuse if someone was in charge of safekeeping your child and they took your kid for a walk through an area known for violence and murder?