
How China Systematically Pries Technology from U.S. Companies - petethomas
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-china-systematically-pries-technology-from-u-s-companies-1537972066
======
diego_moita
And so what???

The US pried the textile and locomotives industries from the UK, check the
history of Samuel Slater[1]. Same happened for Japan under Meiji restoration.
India and Brazil do the same for pharmaceutical patents, because they're too
poor to afford paying them.

Stealing IP will happen, no matter what treaties and governments try to do.
For poor countries it is a path they just don't have the luxury of giving up.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater)

Edit: over-patriotic Americans seem to think this is just about them and call
my argument whataboutism. It isn't both. I am stressing the fact that
protectionism and stealing IP is a path almost every industrialized nation
took. Even the UK did protectionism against India textiles to help their
beginning textile industry.

The industrialized countries are trying to close the gates they used to get
into their rich garden. My point is that right or wrong, moral or not, it
simply won't work.

~~~
reaperducer
_The US pried the textile and locomotives industries from the UK_

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.

~~~
aurailious
Isn't this "whataboutism"? You shut down a conversation by trying to deflect
about how others have also done something?

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?

~~~
chillacy
To call what we call “IP infringement” as wrong presumes IP monopolies are
right, and that there’s no objective reason why it’s so .

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...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141230/09362929550/how-
gongkai-innovation-could-allow-china-to-leapfrog-west.shtml)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
All right, but if China has signed international IP agreements, it is
reasonable to expect them to keep their word.

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

------
natvert
It's hard for me to believe that all the smart, capable company executives
involved in planning and execution of operations in and around China are
oblivious to IP risks.

There is an obvious upside of operating in Asia, both cheap labor (though now
decreasing) and strong work ethic coupled with access to a huge market.

It seems to me that execs understand and take a calculated risk when they
choose to do business in various parts of the world. If they cannot make this
calculation, they should not be running a company.

More than anything else, the attitude displayed in this article appears to me
as an attempt to defer (or pass to the public) the consequences of the above
calculated choices. If not directly, through a trade war that will hurt all
Americans. All the while, these companies keep their financial gain private,
in the pockets of execs and shareholders.

There is something to be said for protecting IP in the interest of a country's
defense, but the technology that qualifies for this type of protection should
be the subject of public debate, not a president's whim. Furthermore, unless
the companies that own this IP are taken over by the state, company execs will
always be free to make the decision re. operating in Asia and between the
associated IP risks and capital gain.

~~~
optimiz3
Perhaps we should consider revoking patent and other IP protections for
companies that knowingly or negligently allow IP to be transferred to
jurisdictions that do not respect IP rights in pursuit of profit.

Otherwise it's a double whammy, your foreign competitors compete unbound while
your domestic market competition is restricted.

It would also align the game theory to prevent companies from "selling out" to
such jurisdictions.

~~~
fspeech
Patents are public knowledge. How do you revoke public knowledge?

~~~
optimiz3
You revoke the monopoly patents grant in the local jurisdiction, not the
knowledge.

------
YorkshireSeason
There's a gentlemen's agreement between nations that this is permissible for
poor nations. China is no longer poor and now must act like a wealthy nation
and accept IP laws.

~~~
Leary
Francis Cabot Lowell, who was instrumental behind the industrialization of the
US, visited textile plants in the UK and committed their designs to memory,
which were later introduced to the famed Lowell textile plants in
Massachusetts.

At the time (1826), America's per capita GDP was $2,460, which is 68% of the
UK's per capita GDP of $3,600. Today, China's per capita GDP is $16,000, or
29% of of the US's per capita GDP of $55,000.

~~~
HaloZero
Other Western nations are also behind the US in terms of GDP per capita but
not as much as China.

Japan is about $39,000, Germany is $41,000, France is like $37,000.

But Poland which is part of the EU is $12,000 as well. Russia is like $9000
per capita.

~~~
Aunche
Poland can't get away with violating IP laws, since they're part of the EU and
benefit from that relationship. Russia is basically doing the same thing as
China, but they don't export enough for it to really matter.

------
coliveira
The behavior they describe is exactly how every industrialized nation has
become industrialized (except for UK). There is no way to develop a
technologically advanced nation if you respect artificially imposed barriers
such as patents, which by their very nature cannot be effectively enforced in
foreign countries.

~~~
sangnoir
> The behavior they describe is exactly how every industrialized nation has
> become industrialized (except for UK).

Not even the UK is exempt- Robert Fortune stole tea production IP (and
samples) from China(!) in a covert mission[1] for Britain[2]. Now tea is
quintessentially british

1\. [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-
tea...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-tea-
heist-9866709/)

2\. I know Britain and the UK are not the same thing. Bear with me, NI.

------
pjc50
There's a rather surprising attitude in this discussion that the IP belongs to
a country (e.g. "Allowing non-citizens to get access to the IP should be
illegal."), as if it were some sort of nationalised asset in common ownership.
It's a privately owned asset for private benefit. It's not a form of property
that pays property tax.

~~~
gaius
Yes and no. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If person X develops something that
they could not have developed without certain institutional and social and
physical infrastructure around them then it’s by no means as clear cut.

For example I think most people in the UK would say if the taxpayer has
directly or indirectly underwritten something then it’s not unreasonable for a
portion of the profit on that thing to be taxed and spend on the NHS, roads,
education, whatever the inventor leveraged and benefitted from along the way.
That’s not to say that the inventor can’t or shouldn’t get rich themselves,
but it is only fair that they give something back.

~~~
Zeebrommer
See also: tax evasion scandals.

------
mc32
Well, at least the cat’s out of the bag and the media aren’t pretending it
doesn’t exist or that people are exaggerating, etc.

Of course now people are going to normalize it and say it’s no big deal after
years of saying it was an exaggeration.

But that’s what you get when you get blinded by the lure of 1-billion
potential consumers... along with an unfavorable trade agreement wich allowed
for assymetrical tariffs, etc.

~~~
zeroname
> ...unfavorable trade agreement wich allowed for assymetrical tariffs, etc.

Assymmetrical tariffs are _more favorable_ than symmetrical tariffs, something
practically every economist agrees on. Also, why insist on exporting more
valuable goods to China, when China remains perfectly content with green
pieces of paper instead?

~~~
mistermann
Would it be more accurate to say: "Assymmetrical tariffs are more favorable
than symmetrical tariffs, something practically every economist agrees on,
_for certain situations_ "?

Does there ever come a point where they should be normalized? From most of
what I've read in mainstream news coverage, this topic seems to be considered
not valid for discussion, as if the answer is self-evident (despite very few
of the reporters, or readers, having any serious depth in the subject).

~~~
zeroname
> Does there ever come a point where they should be normalized?

The ideal situation is _no tariffs on either side_ , which _is_ normalized.

> _for certain situations?_

For any given economic scenario there's a practical intervention that would
result in a better result than what the theory suggests is the best expected
result. There's also an infinite number interventions that result in a worse
outcome. The problem is, how do you know what the right intervention is? You
_don 't_.

> From most of what I've read in mainstream news coverage, this topic seems to
> be considered not valid for discussion, as if the answer is self-evident

It's not self-evident, the question just has remained settled for over a
century. Economists disagree over all kinds of things, this isn't one of them.

~~~
mistermann
> The ideal situation is no tariffs on either side, which is normalized.

Fine, but that's not the case now, correct?

> The problem is, how do you know what the right intervention is? You don't.

Do you or practically every economist know?

> It's not self-evident, the question just has remained settled for over a
> century.

I'm not sure what question you're referring to.

China became a member of the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001,
and was given developing nation status which comes with a variety of benefits.
Should that status ever change?

------
jarym
US companies go into China eyes wide open - they can extract a few quarters of
profit from their products and services but that's it; the Chinese will then
expect to do it themselves and keep all the profits to themselves.

To most its not a good deal. To US companies, that are driven by quarterly
targets then it is very much a case of sacrificing the future for the present.
And if they stay out of China then the odds are that hackers will either steal
the info anyway or another western competitor will play ball.

There's just no way to stop this happening as I see it. The best non-US
companies can do is negotiate an equity stake in their local partners and hope
the government doesn't pass laws to take it away.

~~~
StreamBright
Reminds me of Goolgle and Facebook comes to my country takes all the ad
revenue and the country gets nothing.

~~~
Aunche
They get Google and Facebook.

~~~
russh
... and ads, don't forget the ads!

------
zekevermillion
China doesn't need the technology per se. China is now an advanced
technological country in its own right, even if the fruits of that may still
be unevenly distributed -- as, to be fair, they are in the rest of the world
as well. The behaviors described are primarily about control and power over
strategic industries at a macro level.

------
mrdoops
I think I'd rather technology be dispersed without regulatory impedance.
There's still the problem of how to reward/incentivize innovation and
development of new technology, but maybe the benefits outweigh the costs or
there's ways we haven't thought about how to reward and incentivize
innovation.

------
analognoise
I don't get it: why not just not do business with China? If they're going to
take your IP, just don't go there.

~~~
ndesaulniers
Then how do you complete when your competitors already have and their costs
are now significantly reduced?

~~~
analognoise
If you absolutely require lower wages to make a profit (your business plan has
already failed, but let's go with it):

Go to any one of a number of other countries that don't expect you to partner
with a communist dictatorship and give up IP in order to have goods produced
there? Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Mexico, India?

It seems like a pretty obvious "AVOID" signal for me, but I'm not running a
multinational that's cut corners to keep profit margins high while exporting
all of the manufacturing work.

~~~
hungryhobo
but the countries you listed also require local partnership.

------
naruvimama
The western markets has already peaked and is therefore "forced" to go to
China. While from a western point of view it feels alarming to loose their
edge. From a Chinese point of view, why would they let anyone share a piece of
their growth with nothing in return.

A source of cheap labour, raw materials and a huge market, is something that
people from ex-colonies are all too familiar with. One should also acknowledge
the high tech cartels that exists.

In a way it is a free market, because people can not claim to not know what
they were getting themselves into.

------
standerman
I've seen some recent pushes for "right to repair" legislation. I can see how
this is great for consumers. I can also see how this forces companies to be
more open about their components and interfaces, which weakens their ability
to keep trade secrets. It also increases the attack surfaces for people and
organizations attempting to compromise the device. I suspect the end result is
more system on a chip design styles that are basically impossible to repair.

~~~
Nasrudith
That is already the status quo really from other forces. Repairing usually
doesn't scale, automation allows for very fine details to join cheaper faster
and better like soldering instead of ribbom connectors. Security by obscurity
isn't.

Trade secrets are bullshit as a doctrine. Why is the rest of society obligated
to protect not advancing at their own expense for the sake of private greed?
The proper response to breech of trade secrets in a court of law should be
"You never registered it for any sort of protection in exchange for disclosure
and chose to keep it secret. Go to hell."

------
misabon
AMD has to license their stuff to Hygon too. I think it’s great. IP laws are
stifling innovation and the fact that there is an escape hatch in China is a
good thing.

~~~
zeroname
IP laws also _support_ innovation. Nobody would invest millions into figuring
out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some disease, if there wasn't a
way to profit from that.

At the other end of the spectrum is protecting the "invention" of buying
something with a single mouse click.

There should be a healthy middle somewhere.

~~~
schiffern
>Nobody would invest millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms
that cures some disease

Sure they would. It's called public research, most of which is promptly handed
to private companies to profit from. Pharmaceutical research is hugely
taxpayer subsidized.[1]

Let me be clear: I think the _funding_ is a good thing, but the privatization
(read: theft) of subsequent profits is bad.

[1] [https://other98.com/taxpayers-fund-pharma-research-
developme...](https://other98.com/taxpayers-fund-pharma-research-development/)

~~~
zeroname
Obviously I'm talking about _private_ investment, not public funding.

Of course these companies use information obtained through public research,
they're _supposed to_ , because there's a long process from research to an
approved product, which is what the research institutions _do not do_. Public
and private research goes hand in hand, just like in other industries. The
study quotes a hundred billion in public funding over six years, compare that
to private R&D budgets of well over 50 billion per year:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#The_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#The_cost_of_innovation)

It's not "a scam", as that article wants you to believe. You should stop
reading that website, it's making you more uneducated.

~~~
schiffern
> Obviously I'm talking about private investment, not public funding.

Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures
some disease." How does that _not_ answer your question? Furthermore, how
would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just moving the goalposts
here.

>It's not "a scam", as that article wants you to believe. You should stop
reading that website, it's making you more uneducated.

My apologies, your friendly suggestion is misguided. My "source" was the
notoriously uneducated Noam Chomsky, but I knew you'd pooh-pooh that (can't
stop you tho! :D) as appeal to authority. I confess I lazily Googled the
citation.

Direct link to the timecode of Chomsky's comments:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szIGZVrSAyc&t=11m18s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szIGZVrSAyc&t=11m18s)
(~4m long)

~~~
zeroname
> Obviously both can "[figure] out the right arrangement of atoms that cures
> some disease." How does that not answer your question?

I didn't ask a question.

> Furthermore, how would 'obviousness' negate a counterexample? You're just
> moving the goalposts here.

You are playing a semantic game. The obvious, honest interpretation of my
words is that I'm talking about preserving private investment. I'm of course
aware that governments can and do fund research. I didn't expect to be
discussing with a person that has such poor debating skills as to resort to
such nitpicking, otherwise I wouldn't have replied at all.

> My apologies, your friendly suggestion is misguided. My "source" was the
> notoriously uneducated Noam Chomsky, but I knew you'd pooh-pooh that (can't
> stop you tho! :D) as appeal to authority.

No I wouldn't, because Mr. Chomsky isn't considered an authority on that
particular subject (or most any of the many subjects he has opinions on).

Again, I'm not denying the contributions of publicly funded universities.
You're (apparently) denying the contribution of privately funded R&D. It's
true that companies rely on public research, why shouldn't they? What else is
supposed to happen?

~~~
schiffern
>I didn't ask a question.

Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, " _nobody_ would invest
millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some
disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that."

Everything else is noise.

~~~
zeroname
> Allow me to rephrase: that disproves your statement, "nobody would invest
> millions into figuring out the right arrangement of atoms that cures some
> disease, if there wasn't a way to profit from that."

You _really_ want to play that dumb semantic game? Fine, I'll play: I didn't
specify _financial_ profit. When publicly funded research leads to the cure
for a disease, then _the public_ profits.

> Everything else is noise.

No it isn't, "everything else" is the _whole damn point_ that you fail to
address.

~~~
schiffern
If calling false statements false is a "semantics game," then yes I'm happy to
play.

>Fine, I'll play: I didn't specify _financial_ profit. When publicly funded
research leads to the cure for a disease, then the _public_ profits.

Your attempt to walk back isn't credible. Your immediately previous sentence
that this backs up was "IP laws _also_ support innovation." Tautologically, if
your goal is _public_ benefit then it belongs in the _public_ domain, with no
need for IP protection.

_Unless_ your purported goal of "public benefit" is just private enrichment in
disguise: corporate R&D subsidies, wherein publicly-developed tech is handed
over to private companies for "commercialization" (typically by licensing it
'for a song' compared to the taxpayer's risky R&D expenditure, with private
companies cherry-picking 'winner' technologies to license while the public
picks up the tab for the many inevitable losers that come from anything
risky). This is very common, of course.

If your true goal is _public_ profit then no IP is needed. Only if your goal
is private profit (handing over an exclusive license to one's buddies) does IP
come into play.

~~~
zeroname
> Your attempt to walk back isn't credible.

I'm not walking back on anything, you claim you "disproved" my statement as
false, I "proved" it to not be false, even if one wanted to play a stupid
semantic game. I'd prefer we didn't play that game in the first place.

> Your immediately previous sentence that this sentence back up was "IP laws
> also support innovation." Tautologically, if your goal is public benefit
> then it belongs in the public domain, with no need for IP protection.

Of course my goal isn't "public benefit". Like I originally said, the point
behind the statement is maintaining private investment. But my statement, as
written, isn't _wrong_ as you tried to show. My intention is entirely
orthogonal to the statement being false, you're raising a false dichotomy. You
failed at your nitpicking, that's all. Did I even _think_ about all that when
writing the sentence? Of course not, I didn't expect to end up debating
someone who would resort to such primitive tactics.

You've weaseled away from the issue since the beginning, namely that private
investments far exceed public investments and that without a way to protect
that investment (i.e. through intellectual property), that money would
disappear. If you want to argue that everything would be surely better if the
government researched, developed _and marketed_ novel drugs, then _do that_.
Make a good case for it. _Don 't_ go about nitpicking casually written
sentences, it's intellectually embarrassing. It just shows you're a waste of
time to talk to.

~~~
schiffern
>private investments far exceed public investments

Nope, sorry. Public investment _just_ fell below 50%... for the first time
since WWII. [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-
govern...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-
share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50)

>It just shows you're a waste of time to talk to.

haha, you're a peach.

Attack the messenger to your heart's content. Game, set, match.

------
anon92612
It’s interesting the vast difference in reporting the media has on China’s IP
issues vs India’s and even Canada’s.

I wonder if China only remade pharmaceutical IP while India remade
technological, the reports would be different?

Or is it because China is a rival?

~~~
misabon
It’s the last thing. India and Canada are globally irrelevant. China is a
waking titan.

------
amluto
I think it wouldn’t be so bad if _everyone_ forced their major contractors to
share IP. Sure, it would be harder for a vendor to own a market for decades,
but is that really a bad thing?

------
mtgx
Every time you see a news post about a tech company "partnering" with a
Chinese company, you should be thinking they were _forced_ to do that. This
has been going on for many years, but it became much more of a "rule" in China
since a couple of years ago. It's when most of the large American tech
companies started announcing "joint ventures" with Chinese firms almost in
unison.

However, tech companies seem to be more than happy to give 50%+ of their
business in China away, as well as 100% of the tech IP that will be stolen
once the partnership happens. And then they whine about how restrictive the
GDPR or a similar law in the US would be.

~~~
rocketflumes
I understand that the scope and scale of the technology transfer agreements
may be unreasonable, but surely these foreign companies aren't "forced" to
oblige? I'm not sure if it's on China that many companies find it more
profitable to have access to the Chinese market than to hold on to their IPs.

~~~
HillaryBriss
When China was admitted to the WTO, manufacturers in China gained access to
other WTO member markets on better terms than they had before.

And, in theory, in exchange for that access, outside companies gained new
access to the Chinese market - to investing in factories there and selling
products and services there. That was supposed to be part of the WTO deal.

But, the requirement in China that state owned companies had to be partners,
that IP had to be transferred to these state partners as an _additional
condition_ of doing business -- that's what is unusual, that's where the word
"forced" enters the conversation.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WTO rules reallly allow for
that sort of required government involvement.

~~~
fspeech
No WTO is about trade and it is fairly silent on investment. See
[https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/invest_e/invest_info_e....](https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/invest_e/invest_info_e.htm)
"As an agreement that is based on existing GATT disciplines on trade in goods,
the Agreement is not concerned with the regulation of foreign investment. The
disciplines of the TRIMs Agreement focus on investment measures that infringe
GATT Articles III and XI, in other words, that discriminate between imported
and exported products and/or create import or export restrictions."

~~~
HillaryBriss
Thanks.

I think a recent EU complaint to the WTO about IP transfer rules in China does
a better job of explaining the issue than I have. Bloomberg wrote about it in
June:

 _In its complaint, the EU is targeting rules in China on the import and
export of technologies and on Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures. Certain
provisions “discriminate against non-Chinese companies and treat them worse
than domestic ones,” violating WTO requirements that foreign businesses be put
on an equal footing and that IP such as patents be protected ..._

From

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/europe-
ta...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/europe-takes-china-
to-the-wto-over-technology-transfer-practices)

or

[https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-
economics/2018/06/01/e...](https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-
economics/2018/06/01/europe-takes-china-to-the-wto-over-technology-transfer-
practices)

~~~
fspeech
EU's complaints depend on the TRIPS agreement
[https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e....](https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm)
, which appears to be silent on investment as well. If EU obtains a favorable
ruling it would likely require China to treat patents owned by foreign
entities equally as those owned by the Chinese. However it is unlikely to say
how China should regulate foreign investments. Indeed under WTO countries have
no obligations to allow foreign investments at all. Plus TRIPS contains this
as well: "More precisely, Article 7 (“Objectives”) states that the protection
and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the
promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of
technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological
knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a
balance of rights and obligations."
[https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/techtransfer_e....](https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/techtransfer_e.htm)

~~~
HillaryBriss
Ok. So, it's about equal IP protection and not investment. Thank you for the
clarification.

Based on what you're saying, it sounds like the EU and other countries could
impose a wide range of conditions or restrictions onto Chinese investments or
purchases without running afoul of WTO rules. Interesting stuff.

Looks like I stand both corrected and downvoted. Gotta luv HN!

~~~
fspeech
The theory has always been that countries would compete with each other for
FDI, but the reality is a little more complicated. When Amazon put the
location of its new headquarter out for bid many cities are willing to throw
any concession at Amazon. However that does not mean cities like SF or NYC
would do the same. Not every location has the same attractiveness for
business. Similarly not all countries are the same in their attractiveness to
business. You can't expect countries to not take advantage of the
differentials and offer identical terms unless doing so is in their own
interests.

On the other hand, as a thought experiment, what would have happened if China
had been more open or fair to foreign investments? Then even more businesses
would have invested in China and thus subject themselves to the influence of
the Chinese government. For an example (not to imply any moral equivalence)
see the tremendous power the US government wields over transactions conducted
entirely between foreign entities.

------
subtlefart
State sponsored stealing will get state sponsored slapping

------
mzs
just yesterday in Chicago

[https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651689220/u-s-army-
reservist-...](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651689220/u-s-army-reservist-
arrested-in-chicago-on-charges-of-spying-for-china)

------
Leary
Technology transfer is not coerced if a company enters into a a contract to
transfer technology in exchange for a payment, income that's related to sales,
or licensing fees.

Listen to what the Qualcomm CEO said when a CNBC reporter asked whether China
was stealing its technology:

[https://youtu.be/rAV2y23jHaM?t=2m20s](https://youtu.be/rAV2y23jHaM?t=2m20s)

------
infinity0
Anyone got the text from behind the paywall?

~~~
mtgx
[https://archive.fo/q3bG5](https://archive.fo/q3bG5)

~~~
nerdkid93
Thank you!

------
Tloewald
Of course America got all its technology fair and square.

~~~
zeroname
Some of your ancestors stole something from someone, would you like to:

A) give up some of your property to an entirely unrelated person

B) not do that

Choose wisely!

------
friedman23
Whataboutism.

edit: If someone is using whataboutism (as the person I'm responding to is)
there is no real argument to respond to.

Any modern day atrocity can be justified by saying that it was done in the
past by a different nation. Saying that the US had done something in the past
to justify a different countries' present day actions is intellectually lazy
and dishonest and is meant to shut down discussion. I was just not trying to
waste my time typing this entire statement out but apparently some of you
don't understand why `whatabout x` isn't a real argument.

~~~
ionised
Invoking whataboutism is not a defense against hypocrisy.

~~~
bduerst
Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy is not a defense of bad behavior.

~~~
jessaustin
It is a proof that the behavior in question isn't "bad" in the first place.

~~~
bduerst
The _tu quoque_ fallacy [1] is not proof.

Stealing IP without contributing to creation costs is bad behavior on several
levels.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#The_fallacy)

~~~
jessaustin
You assume that "IP" is a real thing. It is an invented concept. Those who
insist on its reality do so for their own benefit. Those who deny it, do so
for their own. How are disinterested parties to decide? Well, they might
examine how genuine the two positions are...

There is a difference between "I can do this bad thing, because you have
already done it" and "this thing is not bad, otherwise you wouldn't have done
it". _Tu quoque_ addresses the former situation, not the latter.

~~~
bduerst
Whether or not IP is "real" is a red herring from hypocrisy being a valid
defense for bad behavior. You can split hairs on the definition of IP, but the
general consensus in economics is that you need to ensure coverage of the
fixed creation costs of intellectual property to ensure robust investment in
your society.

And no, _tu quoque_ definitively intends to discredit the opponent's argument
by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its
conclusion.

This applies to whataboutism, and exactly what we're talking about in this
thread of deflecting back to the U.S.'s inconsistent behavior in the past.

------
ccnafr
tl;dr: It steals it

~~~
anon92612
piracy != theft

~~~
jessaustin
Actually piracy is a particular kind of theft. Piracy is robbery on the high
seas. Robbery is a type of theft that takes place in conjunction with
violence, force, and intimidation.

Nothing that happens on land is piracy, so I'm not sure why it comes up so
often in these discussions.

------
gonmf
Ah poor DuPont, who will think of the little and weak most powerful chemical
company in the world. Oh the humanity.

------
morpheuskafka
I'm not one to agree with the right wing of US politics very often at all, but
our country needs to sanction and tariff Chinese goods until US rightholders
are reimbursed for their stolen technology AND the PRC greatly reforms its
absymal human rights records.

People are literally living in a modern version of 1984, complete with re-
education camps and stolen Western surveillance technology. No American can in
good conscience send their technology to be stolen by a country that wants to
imprison and torture entire states of its citizens.

If the PRC government merely didn't follow IP law, that would be a calculated
risk. When the PRC steals our technology to power a global game of
persecution, corruption, and espionage, it's morally wrong.

