4 ms·

> Your example of this is from 2011. Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years when China's NEV subsidies

> Your example of this is from 2011. Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years when China's NEV subsidies programs started. > Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago. This was never allowed and China upon China's 2001 Accession were required to phase them out 15 years ago, which China never did. > You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing. Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing requirement since 2015. > 1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense. False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea. The lithium ion battery industry was single-handledly created by Sony in Japan back in the early 1990's; quickly followed by South Korea. China was very late to the game and so far behind, which is why China forced tech transfer from Japan and South Korea since 2011 (see example #1) and effectively banned them in 2015 (example #2) -- still refuses to enforce IPR of foreigners, which isn't anything new. Japan + Korea in fact started going after the Chinese infringers only this year and in Europe -- already scored significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Many more coming and CATL isn't far in their legal pipelines. > 2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies. Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer and other jazz in China. Tesla is an exception, not the norm. After EU filed WT/DS549, China promised to reform FIL and supposedly implemented in 2020/2021, but Tesla still remains the only foreign automaker without forced JV/tech transfer today. > 3. That's the opposite of how dumping works. Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works and why there are over 6-7 dozens of anti-dumping measures against China in EU. Dumping doesn't depend on a markup or profit/loss, but on the undistorted "normal-value" born by market without gov't interference -- eg, price fixing or illegal subsidies. > This was a purely political decision. Again there are over 100+ ACTIVE anti-subsidies/dumping measures in force against China. It's just one of many and has been on EU's radar for 15 years.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
> Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years The Chinese automobile industry in 2011 is hardly relevant to the EV industry in China today. The EV industry was not built by technology transfer requirements. > This was never allowed It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop. > Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing since 2015. The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022. > False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea. You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D. > Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer." Foreign companies knew what the regulations in China were and made a rational business decision to trade some amount of IP for access to cheap labor. Both sides benefited. But beyond that, nowadays, any foreign car company can operate in China without a local joint venture partner. Tesla was the first, but it's not the only one, and other companies are free to leave their joint ventures if they want to. Most of the large foreign automobile manufacturers in China have either acquired majority stakes in their China operations or have bought out their JV partners completely. This is the norm now. > Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank."
- tooltalk 1y ago
  > The Chinese automobile industry in 2011 is hardly relevant to the EV industry in China today. The EV industry was not built by technology transfer requirements. of course they are relevant and are built on tech transfer. > It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop. Again, this was illegal then and China was taken to the WTO in 2018 (WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology ) as I'd already explained (example #1). > The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022. Sure, which EV or batteries before 2022? > You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D. Again, "ACTIVE" patents. Patents last just 20 years. Korea in particular have already dominated most automotive lithium ion battery patents 10-15 years. Again, this why is China forced tech transfer and "effectively" banned Japan + Korea battery makers when they realized their local "champions" still couldn't catch up or compete in 2015. China's obsession with LFP whose core patents expired last 3-4 years is likewise no coincidence and their "RECENT" investment in "post"-lithium ion batteries, such as sodium. > Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer." Again, see the WTO case WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology > No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank." Again this doesn't apply to China. China's "local price" or "cost of manufacture" is not considered a "normal value" as their entire supply-chain is distorted by gov't subsidies. Europe's Basic Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (anti-subsidy regulation) has specific provisions for non-market-economy countries -- ie China, Article 2(7a) In the case of imports from non-market-economy countries (6), the normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

> Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years The Chinese automobile industry in 2011 is hardly relevant to the EV industry in China today. The EV industry was not built by technology transfer requirements. > This was never allowed It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop. > Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing since 2015. The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022. > False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea. You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D. > Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer." Foreign companies knew what the regulations in China were and made a rational business decision to trade some amount of IP for access to cheap labor. Both sides benefited. But beyond that, nowadays, any foreign car company can operate in China without a local joint venture partner. Tesla was the first, but it's not the only one, and other companies are free to leave their joint ventures if they want to. Most of the large foreign automobile manufacturers in China have either acquired majority stakes in their China operations or have bought out their JV partners completely. This is the norm now. > Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank."

tooltalk 1y ago
> The Chinese automobile industry in 2011 is hardly relevant to the EV industry in China today. The EV industry was not built by technology transfer requirements. of course they are relevant and are built on tech transfer. > It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop. Again, this was illegal then and China was taken to the WTO in 2018 (WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology ) as I'd already explained (example #1). > The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022. Sure, which EV or batteries before 2022? > You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D. Again, "ACTIVE" patents. Patents last just 20 years. Korea in particular have already dominated most automotive lithium ion battery patents 10-15 years. Again, this why is China forced tech transfer and "effectively" banned Japan + Korea battery makers when they realized their local "champions" still couldn't catch up or compete in 2015. China's obsession with LFP whose core patents expired last 3-4 years is likewise no coincidence and their "RECENT" investment in "post"-lithium ion batteries, such as sodium. > Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer." Again, see the WTO case WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology > No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank." Again this doesn't apply to China. China's "local price" or "cost of manufacture" is not considered a "normal value" as their entire supply-chain is distorted by gov't subsidies. Europe's Basic Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (anti-subsidy regulation) has specific provisions for non-market-economy countries -- ie China, Article 2(7a) In the case of imports from non-market-economy countries (6), the normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.