I feel like this misses the point. I don't expect people to complain much about IP being stolen by competitors - that feels like an security/internal problem.

The issue with China seems to be that they force partnerships with Chinese companies, resulting in western companies having to share their IP, and when that IP is used outside of the constraints of whatever contract was created and the western company complains, the Chinese government colludes with the Chinese company to stymie or exploit the western company as much as can be done without breaking the relationship.

I'm also not going to say whether this is right or wrong - just that the feeling I get from the whole thing (as someone who doesn't follow this stuff that closely) is that the government efforts go beyond what others have done in the past (which I understand to be more subsidizing industries to boot them up).

If China can afford to not respect the IP laws then there is nothing what a company can do, eventually the secrets would be reversed engineered.

The real issue here is China's double-talk on trade. They talk about open free trade but in reality they practice intense nationalistic and protectionist trade tactics. They do everything possible to prevent foreign companies from selling anything in China, while at the same time doing everything they can to attract foreign labor outsourcing, capital, and of course IP.

I can't blame them too much. These kinds of trade policies are how nations build strong domestic economies. The US did the same thing during its industrialization phase. Nevertheless it's horrible for American workers and the American middle class.

It's literally the only thing I agree with Trump about -- that China needs to be taken to task for its extremely aggressive trade policies.

Also, as time goes on the skills of the entire world population is being equalized. That is to say, the skilled labor market is becoming global. When that happens American workers and middle class simply can't keep enjoying the high wages that are currently prevalent.

Unless of course, you want to start a new era of imperialism and force developing economies to confine themselves to the lower end of the value chain.

Its a siren song that is enabled by increased quarterly profits, even knowing full well the risks, it will be another CEO and board before they come home to roost.

This is the sort of argument that an eight-year-old makes to his mother, and the mother responds, "If Jimmy jumped off a bridge, would you?"

I don't know if you're an American or not, but there's an very common expression: Two wrongs don't make a right.

China has a lot of wealth on display but overall isn't so well developed if you remember the fact that so many people live there. If China were as developed as the US, we would expect it to be something like 3x the economic activity as the US.

GDP per capita:

USA: 57k

Canada: 42k

UK: 39k

...

Kazakhstan: 8k

China: 8k

Libya: 7k

In addition by some metrics, it could be exploiting even harder to achieve further industrialization. For instance, China is way behind the US in CO2 emissions per capita even today, and if you count total CO2 emissions, the US is still #1. If China had equal CO2 emissions as the US per capita (which might indicate a similar level of industrialization), that would be disastrous.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...

https://xkcd.com/1170/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Of course?

This is one of the stupidest question in the world; I don't understand how parents worldwide are still repeating it.

Randall Munroe explains it best: https://xkcd.com/1170/.

Now there's an hypocrisy to complain about a rule when you broke it prior.

Like you said, two wrongs don't make a right. Just by pointing out this has happened elsewhere doesn't make the conversation about China doing it any less important or relevant. Why shut down this conversation?

In the US patent law doesn’t cover everything, there are alternate forms of IP like copyright which has let open source software and fashion thrive.

Then there’s the open hardware system in China called GongKai: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141230/09362929550/how-g...

[See my other comment for how to interpret "expect", though...]

On another level, though, any country that has more to gain by stealing than to lose by being stolen from is going to be tempted to steal. Given what human nature is, you'd better expect it to happen.

It's like how in domestic society, on one level we expect people to obey the law. But on another level we expect at least some people not to, which is why we have police.

There are other ways to convince people, like appealing to their interests or punishing with retribution.

So it’s worth noting that, as a western company, you cannot trust these agreements, whether or not the actions of the Chinese are justified. You should assume that any restrictions you negotiated are worthless, and if you want access to the Chinese market the price implicitly includes any IP the local partner can take.

That’s what I see as the takeaway.

But over the years they started developing in-house knowledge, and their own innovations.

Now Toyota is known for making reliable cars that are affordable. Is the world better off with Toyota making cars? I think so. But is Chrysler worse off? I also think so. So it’s a tough one. But at the same time I like the philosophy of software startups regarding ideas: sure, take these ideas for free, it’s all in the execution.

You can place a bit more blame on the US companies that let it happen. The people running them are short-sighted and unpatriotic.

The real problem is that the law allows companies to be in a race to the bottom that is ultimately self-destructive. Allowing non-citizens to get access to the IP should be illegal. If it were, then bringing that IP to a location controlled by China's contradictory law would be a violation.

You can't fully stop spies, but you sure can make it illegal to simply hand things over without a fight.

Samuel Slater is a fine example. He was a spy. He broke the law. The USA would have gotten the technology years earlier if the UK had simply handed it over. Picture that: the USA demands that textile factories be built in the USA, as joint partnerships with technology transfer. The UK wasn't that stupid.

This is one aspect of Chinese culture that I’ll never understand. For example, if you get cheated, it’s your fault for being lax/trusting/stupid enough to get cheated. The immorality is on the victim, which makes for some extremely paranoid business relationships when working in China.

How is that beneficial in the long term? Why doesn’t such a system just implode on itself? I guess this is where guanxi comes into play to counteract that, because I don’t see how it could work otherwise.

Does Chinese culture actually shift moral blame onto the victim? If not, then this sounds a bit like the "victim blaming" obsession of modern American culture, which misses the crucial point - there are two types of blame to be passed around here. The offender was evil - they cheated. The victim was stupid - they were aware of the danger and ignored it.

It isn't really victim blaming, more like your business partner comes back to you and says "Why did you let me cheat you? This is all your fault."

In turn, we ought to acknowledge both the possibility that fighting back might hurt more than it helps and the possibility that we've been shooting ourselves in the foot by turning the other cheek.