U.S. business walked into China and handed over all of their technology and Intellectual Property, just to have it used against them by the Chinese government. China has only resorted to hacking lately in order to get more technology and IP.
It got stolen by China. How can that be justified?
And sure there are arguments against that justification (and for it).
Stealing it, is not R&D, it's theft and punishable by law.
Eg. Nintendo Wii, Xbox Kinect and PlayStation Move are the same concepts with a different approach.
What if the Kinect and Move had spent their research budget building on top of the Wii instead of reinventing it? Would the world be a better place?
(Personally, I find it baffling to see people espousing "research should be private because it yields better outcomes" on a site for an industry so deeply indebted to open source. We have empirical evidence about which approach works better, and it's not the closed private research lab one.)
There's an easy solution to reciprocity: abandon IP protection in the US, too. My entire claim is that that would lead to a better world. If we want to not do that, we should either defend that it would lead to a worse world, or admit that we're not making arguments based on what's best for society. That's why I found the argument about "but IP protection brought us Kinect and Move" unconvincing: it's not clear at all to me that the outcome was better than in the world where the US didn't recognize IP protection.
I just think it has to be tweaked for preventing abuse. But it had it's advantages.
If you remove IP protection, why would a company spend millions on research on R&D to innovate something.
Look at the products that got copied from Kickstarter by China before they launched, those people really got their dream crushed.
Ps. Kinect was just an example, look for the bigger picture ;)
Ideas are cheap. These Chinese companies are supposedly taking pre-validated (via crowd funding) ideas from Kickstarter and then manufacturing them. How is this a bad thing? It introduces a desirable competition for the best ability to execute on those plans.
They already did more than "an idea".
3d models, marketing ( eg. Video), product iterations,..
They mostly want funds to manufacture the product, because not everyone can spend money for a MOQ manufacturing run...
What they do is unethical.
Here's some more info: https://qz.com/771727/chinas-factories-in-shenzhen-can-copy-...
I said: the consumers have more options. Personally, I prefer the Kinect. So yes, I'm for diversity.
In a forum of "open source" people.
What does this has to do with it? I find it baffling you don't see the difference.
How do you earn your money? Work at a traditional company or did you create you own open-source product with donations?
I'd be damned if you are one of the 0,01% here that earns all his income through open-source.
I find it baffling you don't see the simple difference between software parents and IP ( without software).
Fyi. You are not earning your money through open-source. Otherwise you would know that if not the golden life either.
3) Research should be public?
Wtf? So every company should share everything?
Wtf? How realistic is that???
Answer: it's not. It's never going to happen. Stop dreaming and come back to reality please.
In a lot of the responses here, I honestly think that I have to explain it to a 12-year old. Because they don't seem to grasp reality. Or trolls, or Chinese state sponsored propaganda. I really don't understand the low quality of responses, constant Whataboutism ! Unrelated responses). That baffles me at this moment.
If you are against privatisation, great. Go to a communist country and prove it. Don't forget the 996 debacle or Jack Macs response to it.
You only want open-source? Great. Quit your job and prove me wrong that your can get an income there.
You know you won't do any of those both things. But probably you have an excuse. Great, then adjust to reality and stop believing in fairy tales. Adjust your opinion to something realistic.
Open-source takes a long road to profitability, it's not that easy. And probably, because your designs are online, some lower-cost Chinese company will take it and produce it cheaper. Except, if you have build a big community around it, it will work out for them. But the chances are really small.
Open-source always had an Enterprise/cloud option also to earn money. Currently, it's the only stable way ( donations are not a stable source of income)
Now, we are going back in circles about what was the issue...
Um, can't you also work at Red Hat or Mozilla or somewhere? Or even USDS or NASA? (Remember, OpenStack came out of a joint project between NASA and a for-profit company, and plenty of people in both organizations were paid to work on open-source full-time to make it happen....)
Firefox is probably the only one. But they can only hire a limited amount of people and their resources depend on their market share of I'm correct.
A big part of that is the "default search engine setting" ( paid based on market share), so open-source still doesn't pay the bills at the end of the day.
My argument is still valid.
Why is the legitimate purpose of laws to make you happier as a consumer?? What does that have to do with anything? (And, to the point I was originally making, why do you believe you wouldn't be even happier in the world I describe? You'd get a Kinect researched with awareness of what the Wii and Move tried and didn't, so it'd either be better or cheaper or perhaps both.)
2) Again, the legitimate purpose of government is not to preserve the way I make money, either. You're making the "Yet you participate in society!" argument. Yes, I do. The fact that I think a certain course of action is individually rational for me to preserve life and health does not mean I think the availability of that course, to the exclusion of other possible courses, is inherently good or worth preserving.
But just so you know: I maintain systems infrastructure for a hedge fund, all based on open-source software (Debian, OpenStack, Ceph, etc.). The hedge fund operates on secrecy of market data and insights but not on secrecy of fundamental research (and also making e.g. Linux available to everyone makes everyone more productive, but making our ideas about alpha available to everyone makes the alpha go away). To be clear, working at a hedge fund does not mean that I think the existence of hedge funds is inherently good or that I am opposed to societies where hedge funds don't exist, any more than working at Blockbuster means you're opposed to Netflix existing. My work is all on things that would benefit the world more if they were public and would benefit my employer no less; it's just difficult to maintain a separation between publishable work and sensitive algorithms, so I don't do as much as I'd like. But I'd like to do more, and I've quite loudly disagreed with our internal policies on this, because I think I can do better for the world and for our company if allowed to be public about everything. And my work, in any case, is keeping them running, not creating new private ideas. The public knows how to create sandwiches, and yet Subway is profitable.
And it is beyond clear that my company would be less profitable if open source software did not exist, or if we used a proprietary stack/vendor for everything.
3) Yes, it's realistic. You haven't presented an argument beyond "Nyeh, it's not," so I say, "Nyeh, is too."
> Wtf? So every company should share everything?
> Wtf? How realistic is that???
That's not what "research should be public" means. It just means that the existing institutions which the public funds for research (universities and research labs) should have their remit expanded to include "private" R&D for public benefit; and that, additionally, the public sector should routinely buy out valuable private R&D, perhaps via formally-established "prizes" - instead of merely allowing it to be monopolized via IP protection. We spend a lot of tax money already to fund private R&D by firms, that could instead be directed to fund these mechanisms.
Private firms are mostly subsided by government for employment, not for their research
I really wish we would be able to move past these extremely basic arguments and have some discussion of the topic that isn't repeating the same thing over and over. It's fine to disagree with the duplication argument, but it's a waste of everyone's time to pretend it doesn't exist.
Other options include collective funding of R&D (either the government-funding model, popular in the US for landing on the moon and creating the internet and taking a photo of a black hole, or the voluntary-collective model, popular in the US for creating basically all the technology we're using to have this conversation). If collective funding is more productive, this compensates the participants for R&D. And it may be subject to a prisoner's-dilemma problem, where any one entity can profitably defect even if everyone would be better off if no one did. Creating prisoner's-dilemma situation doesn't seem like a just use of the powers of government.
Per the other commenter, unless you're suggesting that private property just shouldn't exist, then your argument falls apart. And if you are arguing private property shouldn't exist, I think you'll find very few takers.
The argument I'm talking about is that the right to private property is the right to ownership/control. If I have X, and I am deprived of it / it is taken from me, it is unjust.
The argument you are referencing is that the right to private property is the right to exchange it at a certain value, and a negative impact on its market value is unjust. I can see some cases where this is true (e.g., buying a name-brand purse and finding it's an equally functional counterfeit), some where it's debatable (e.g., buying a house in a quiet neighborhood that gets loud), and some where it's not (e.g., buying a large quantity of a psychoactive substance that isn't controlled and then having it become controlled). So it seems like a weaker argument to me. I think you can still defend it by saying that the not-unjust cases are because there's a greater good / more important right being protected. But I also think you can just hold to the other definition of the right to private property.
In kindergartener terms: if I bring candy to school and my teacher takes it from me and eats it, that's wrong, that's stealing. If I bring candy to school with the intent to give it to other kids to boost my popularity, and the teacher tells me I can't do that and have to keep the candy in my bag, that doesn't seem like stealing.
I agree that compensating inventors is important. I disagree that treating inventions as property is the only way to do it.
So what is this magical means of Samsung being compensated for their multi-billion dollar investment that China stole that you don't think is a big deal?
As for your analogy, it's patently false that anyone involved wants the candy shared. It's been stolen.
My claim in this thread is that not treating ideas as private property is a defensible and reasonable position to take. When you say that Samsung needs to be "compensated," you make it clear that you're not treating ideas as private property, either. The market value of property is the amount of benefit/enjoyment it provides someone else, not the amount of effort that went into making it. If I spend two hours making a cake, and you spend 30 minutes making a cake, and people want to pay both of us $10 for it, there is no violation of my property rights that I'm not compensated for spending 4x as long. You might casually say that my cake is "a steal," but the cake is definitely not being stolen from me.
If you were arguing about property rights, you would be asking about why Samsung isn't getting paid the fair market value of their ideas, not about why they aren't recouping the investment they put into creating them. (And I've even suggested elsewhere in this thread that compulsory licenses are a way to do this.)
But if you're interested in Samsung recouping their investment, well, we can discuss that but it's absolutely not property rights that are helping them do that today. If we want to discuss that, I'd simultaneously ask how to compensate people for multi-billion dollar investments that don't yield marketable products but are still good for humanity to have done the research.
> As for your analogy, it's patently false that anyone involved wants the candy shared. It's been stolen.
Not sure I follow. Samsung wants to trade phones for money. Samsung does want the phones shared: that's the entire basis of the argument The kid wants to trade candy for reputation. If you prevent Samsung from selling as many phones, no phones are being stolen. (Actually it turns out I didn't even need the analogy here.) If you prevent the kid from giving candy to classmates, no candy is being stolen. Why do you think the candy is being stolen?
i don't quite see it.
if company A aims at the global market with a uniquely innovative product and then company B brings a copy of that product to the global market ten years later, then company A has enjoyed profitability of a unique product for ten years.
but what if company B spies on company A's process and steals copies of its designs and so brings a copy of that product to market ten months later?
isn't that depriving the original owner, company A, of some profits?
You may or may not have a right to a fair market, and fairness may or may not include the right to secret research and development, but it's not because an unfair market harms your property rights or is "theft."
e.g. If I were a consultant to, say, Nvidia, and I told them that they were wasting valuable IT personnel time and resources by locking down and protecting their R&D documents, that all of the computers containing such info were needlessly and wastefully secure, and that, in short, there is no harm in making that info available to the public, including to Intel and AMD -- I mean, I just wonder how I would convince them.
Wouldn't they say something like "No. Releasing that info would be harmful to our bottom line, shareholders, and employees whose bonuses depend upon profitability."
If you failed to convince them, would you then conclude that colonization is actually totally fine?
In particular, if someone were advocating for the independence of India in 1850, would you think the British East India Company could justifiably say "You're harming us"? (Sure, they can say it and they probably would say it, but would they have a point?)
I don't feel that the arguments you're presenting would be persuasive to the companies whose secrets are revealed. But, I may well be missing something. In any case, my takeaways from this discussion are:
1. You believe these companies don't have a solid legal case, that they cannot prove "harm" in the legal sense.
2. You believe that the system of protecting IP the US currently (in theory) embraces is sub-optimal for the well-being of the world.
Eg. Product = movies
Eg. Not product = the nude selfies your girlfriend send to you.
It's not applicable to hardware and R&D. Also, it's seriously taken out of it's context to defend piracy.
You are generalizing the slang to everything, which isn't right.
Let's instead say that people have a right to control of their naked image for reasons that aren't about the property rights to the photo.
In the meantime, it's just the same. It's you and you have the rights to it.
It solves a problem. Your solution is weird and not generic
Your solution doesn't solve these problems. If you want to solve these problems, you can't use copyright.
Okay, why does Linux exist? And why is it competitive with every proprietary OS kernel? And why does it get development from for-profit companies?
> There are reasons we have laws.
Of course there are. Many of those reasons are not good. In the specific realm of intellectual property law, some of those reasons are "because Disney has lobbyists".
I would mind if you break into my house.
R&D documents are not distributed fyi. Totally different things.
PS. I do agree the example isn't that good, because everyone has other opinions. But then again, i don't know if your architect would appreciate it, if you give your plans to someone else.
Because he created it, not you.
The U.S. did the same to Europe in the 17/18th centuries when IT need to bring itself up to par, so did Japan in the 70s/80s - so did the Europeans to the Chinese before that.
China will, (and already does to an extent), innovate and enrich the world, it just needs to catch up fast and this is the best way to do it.
Perhaps that should tell you something. In the end, this helps a country to move past sweat shops and the like faster and am certainly not going to protest too loud against that.
You mention 1 example where copyright failed ( 20 years ago...). Nothing is perfect also and it doesn't mean it's wrong to protect innovative companies.
But you lack the fundamental understanding that nothing in China has this protection. While our allies do.
Except if you count the clothes of Ivanka Trump of course, that won copyright infringement case in China.... Which was no way a political intervention to appeal to someone with the trade war happening ;)
Good rules are better than ego-interventions for the 1% every day of the year.
You asked for a justification and you've answered your own question.
It happens because there are no protections for these thins in China. It is not in their culture to assign intellectual property protections in the way US culture does.
There's your justification. Their culture is different and they see yours as ridiculous and unenforceable.
Right now, they have a lot of luck that they are> 1 billion people and stealing everything they can without punishment.
IP-protection would happen for Chinese firms, just not outsiders. Don't change my words.
"This" protection = global protection. China just has "Chinese" protection. It's not in laid out in rules with them, but it means in 99% of the cases that they are an advantage for Chinese firms.
Ps. Blocking the market is an extreme form of IP-protection, it's even just stealing and adjusting the rules ( required Chinese partnerships). They adapted in a very bad way, they also get previous generation tech because firms don't trust it
"The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish." (Wikipedia)
Without patents what you do is create trade secrets, patents publish the concepts that are protected, they are fully disclosed (or the patent is junk) and after 25 years anyone can use them. The 25 years is the time that you have to get payback on your invention - forcing investment in development now before your monopoly expires.
Please find me an example that open-sourced everything, with their Enterprise solution.
It didn't require any IP theft for that to happen.
I would hate if this happened to the Nintendo Wii, Xbox Kinect or Playstation Move.
Which triggered HTC Vice and the Oculus adoption, later on: Hololens. ( So AR and VR)
They got so much better with actual competition and their own R&D instead of just stealing and hurting the innovator.
Us as customers got a lot more options because of competition, not because of theft.
They've lost factories, lost jobs, lost growth momentum, but got cheap TVs.
You might hate the argument, but it's because the argument is accurate. The increase in US-based production isn't caused by the manufacturing industry kicking ass. It's because they fudge the numbers. They consider a CPU that's sold for twice the $ to be double the production. If you remove the high technology grouping, the US manufacturing base has cratered.
But another way of looking at your stats is that outsourcing labor-heavy jobs to China indeed decreases the amount of jobs available to local people. Industrial output, on the other hand, only grows because of the automation.
Our native industrial output has increased but via automation that actually made jobs decrease. The situation with Carrier, manufacturer of HVAC systems, is a perfect example. They were given a tax break to keep a manufacturing plant in the US, but explicitly stated they'd be investing $13 million in automation that would reduce the number of jobs needed. No other country is getting these jobs instead of the US. The jobs are simply gone, through automation.
When you're well off, as a person or as a country, you can always find people or countries who will manufacture things for you.
But they will want something back. Your real estate. Your universities. Your best people.
It's a high price to pay for a bending phone.
That's why I say that jobs aren't an inherent good. They're a means to an inherently-good end. That makes them conditionally good, so long as they continue to serve the end. Prioritizing the means over the end would be a mistake.
There is no comparable alternative to giving people the things they need or want. I can think of a few (e.g., drugging people, plugging them into the Matrix) and they're unethical.
It got stolen by South Korea, how can that be justified?
> The sale is the reward, the assignment came earlier.
Ps. South Korea was the judge, you are not reading it correctly.
From big companies to the lone worker, if IP is not a thing, I don't see how we can evolve technology.
I agree with the idea of not patenting software, since that is already covered by copyright, and patents were never intended to cover algorithms, however, discarding IP altogether seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Lack of IP doesn't shift the power to innovators, it shifts it to the people with printing presses, with large manufacturing plants that can scale, apple music, etc etc.
IP is the very basis for compensation of innovators.
It makes sense that if you make a comic book about a superhero named Jumpman, printing presses shouldn't be able to just 1:1 copy your product and sell it. They also shoudln't be able to use your Jumpman character in their own works.
But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device.
The only reason we have anything public at all is because most of these inventions happened before the dawn of oppressive IP laws.
You can't, in fact, copyright any of those things. Were they novel, the first two might be the kind of thing to qualify for utility patents, and the last is presumably a loose description of an actual Apple design patent.
I fully agree. Software patents for example should be abolished, and we should get shorter terms on copyright (20 years after death of creator or 80 years after publication, whatever comes sooner would be a good choice). But the very basic concept of copyright and patent law is still good for the individual creators as well as the commons. Abolishing it does not benefit the creators in general, and only shifts power away from them.
Not true. Copyright originally existed to give governments control over owners of presses in an effort to stop printing of dissenting material. It had nothing to do with compensation for authors.
I mean that producers are now strongly bound to distributors, and companies like Disney basically own everything from top to mostly bottom (they’re getting there with their streaming service).
In today’s world I don’t see “little guys” getting practical benefits by virtue of IP. Is there still a baby in the bath water?
But I don't think copyright amendments have been about protecting creators, or the public domain, for some time.
But this case is exactly the reason why it should exist.
Yes, it should get tweaked a little bit though
Your incentive would be that your product is better and sells more, unless and until everyone copies it. As long as the extra profit exceeds the cost invested, it's worth it.
You're claiming there would be no innovation at all unless there's IP.
How did we innovate for hundreds or thousands of years before IP laws, whether the wheel, ironmaking or any other technology?
To flip your question on its head, if IP laws prevent your innovation from reaching everyone, the benefit to society from this innovation is reduced, and that's bad.
I'm curious if you ever tried to sell anything in large volumes. You can invent a brilliant thing but still have hard times selling it because of a lack of resources for marketing and a lack of established sales channels. At the same time, big resourceful corporations just steal you invention and resell it to existing customer base, use huge marketing resources, benefit from brand awareness, etc.
Inventing something better doesn't automatically guarantee you a solid revenue stream. Monetizing good inventions for a small company is a way less trivial task than it might seem.
Are you talking about software patents?
In this way, eliminating copyright will create a race to the top, making all products better.
So, your fellow student will copycat your essay and essays of those around you. As a result he got the highest GPA. He got that job. You didn't.
Fair? Good for you? Good for the society?
The person that took the time to learn it, will grow with their knowledge.
Its incredibly obvious who can produce stuff.
This becomes a cultural difference, and the innovators continue to be number 1.
Always starting from scratch in your own bubble is inefficient.
EU countries aren't safe either, see Greece and Italy.
This isn't a new strategy. I think the main difference in perception in this case is that it's not us doing it.
Loaning money for Goodwill has always been something.
But loaning money, doing the work with your own employees, suggesting infrastructure that they can hardly afford ( and definitely not maintain), burying the country in debt is something new.
Oh yeah, in the contract ofc, they suggest what can be done if they can't pay back ofc.
= Give infrastructure, natural resources and land
Is it? Having your own companies build infrastructure in foreign lands for your own (trade or war) benefits, and dumping the costs of build and maintenance on the region doesn't sound like a 21st century invention - it sounds like a common strategy of powerful nations.
China needs it's 6% growth and is hustling all other possible countries for it with the "one road, one belt" excuse
And when you then remember the project Gladio revelations of the early 90ies/late 80ies and the fact that the last of America's house trained nazi's(the Gehlen organization) would have retired from west Germany influence and you get the idea that the modern German intelligence services consider some parts of the US intelligence network to have become "captured" by non-democratic interests, something the french realized doing the campaign by the OAS against DeGaule in the 60ies when DeGaule suspected that the CIA was not exactly his ally in trying to stamp out right wing coup mongers from inside the french army.
And while all of this have been published by mainstream academics and journalists it's completely left out of any narrative about America's place in the world put forward by the "mainstream"(as in approved by the establishment) American press today when discussing America's place in a post cold war mercantilist conflict against countries that are not taking orders from Washington, nor buying more from the US then they sell to the US.
The problem here is of cause if you consider American authorities to be captured by an mercantilist elite waging an commercial conflict on everyone else the way America accuse the Chinese of doing then the obvious thing is to ban American and Chinese tech from your networks as neither can be considered reliable partners and to be honest an better argument can be made that America with it's rising domestic problem and declining economy is the party more likely to pull the trigger and cause problems for the European economy by utilizing backdoors for harm, then for China doing the same from a position of economic growth.
Nuclear reactors? Machine guns? Bombs? Steam engines? Cannons?
Gunpowder "Theft" dates back to the 14th century. I think everyone will agree that this is realllllly stretching it.
The secret of porcelain making was guarded well by the Chinese, eventually Saxons (or the British, it's disputed who was first) figured it out without their help.
China signed up to the Berne Convention of 1886 on copyright in 1992, three years after USA implemented it.
Berne gives a minimum term of 50 years (loosely speaking) and covers all signatory countries.
Perhaps they shouldn't have signed, or sought to reduce the copyright term?
> But when Hickton went to the companies, eager for them to become plaintiffs, he ran into a problem. None of the companies wanted any part of it. Hickton says they had too much money on the line in China.
There really ought to be a law that mandates that 1) companies disclose any and all hacking incidents/data breaches they become aware of and 2) co-operate with the government in the investigation of those breaches.
Though I'm a little confused why they would need the "the companies to become plaintiffs." Wouldn't hacking be a criminal matter that's would be directly prosecuted by the government? Did they want to go against the hackers both criminally and civilly?
The Justice System in the US is ultimately centered around the Jury. To prove criminality, you need to convince the Jury that a crime was committed. And they are much more likely to empathize and agree with the prosecutors if they have a large number of American companies agreeing with the prosecutors that the Chinese entities stole from them.
You'd figure it would be easier to find nocturnal neckbeards anyways.
And yet the companies who supposedly lose that money don't care.
It reminds me a little of the $200-250B "lost" to piracy by the movie and music industry (http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-mov...). To be more precise it reminds me of how everyone likes to create large impressive numbers that prove their point or support their agenda.
* Investment in IP that then gets stolen.
* Loss of potential earnings as American companies are locked out of Chinese markets
* Loss of actual earnings as American/global consumers switch to Chinese companies (eg huawei) that are accused of unfair business practices or receiving unfair government subsidies.
Some companies “don’t care” because they aren’t actually losing money, they’re just not making as much as they could be.
But other companies are ‘coerced’ into not caring because what happens if they complain? They lose Chinese government contracts. They effectively admit to shareholders that their IP has been stolen and lost. They waste time and resources fighting unwinnable legal battles against Chinese national champions (ie. the Chinese state).
I’ve met plenty of small/medium sized business owners who are so sickened by their experiences with China and the Chinese market that they’re happy to just ignore it all and save themselves the heartache.
If you’ve already stolen the IP, you don’t need to let the foreign business in to provide that service.
Possibly even more widespread though has been the standard practice over the last 20 years of lettin foreign businesses setup shop in China, hacking/stealing all their tech, then the state uses its legal/political resources to make life horrendously difficult for the original foreign business.
I do think US companies suffer from hacking, just like the music and video industry suffer losses from piracy. I think, however, that the numbers reported are exaggerated beyond belief.
Piracy losses are exaggerated because if you take away free music and movies, most pirates will not pay anyway anywhere close to the amounts they are said to "steal" from the copyright owners.
Hacking losses are exaggerated because the supposed trade secrets are often just a PR gimmick. I've seen all too often how corporate lawyers and executives claim their special unique tech is worth billions, when in fact it's worth very little if anything.
As to whether US companies can do something: sure they can; the whole point of the article is that they care a lot less than one would expect.
There have been many APT groups named and tracked since then, not just in China.
> Intrusion Truth's controversial approach of anonymously unmasking government-backed hackers and exposing a foreign intelligence agency is something new and seen as a method to put pressure on Chinese companies cooperating with state-sponsored hacking efforts.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-04/intrusion-truth-my... - https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wjka84/intrusion-... - https://twitter.com/intrusion_truth - https://intrusiontruth.wordpress.com
The type of industrial espionage described in the article is actually a form of temporal arbitrage - it's present shareholders stealing from future shareholders and then hoping to unload the shares before the consequences of their decisions are reaped. In order to get access to the lucrative Chinese market now (and goose this quarter's earnings), they put up with Chinese industrial espionage that results in reduced competitiveness 10 years down the road. In 10 years, they probably won't be working at the company, nor will they hold many shares, and so the consequences don't affect them personally.
This is a big problem in general (not just with industrial espionage - short-termism also affects labor practices, financial health, social fabric, environmental pollution, and global warming), but it's hard to see how any legal solution would fix it. Future shareholders are generally not entitled to sue until they actually become shareholders, at which point everybody says "Well, you should've known how fucked up the company was when you bought the shares". Similarly, unborn children don't get a vote on societal policies that may destroy the earth or society they live in before they're born. Usually the best alternative is just to deal with the problem with band-aids in the future, once it becomes widely recognized as a problem.
Alternate reality: they stay alive instead of being hammered in earnings by their competitors, invest increased earnings to get better at security and prevent future data exfiltrations, use their existing corpus of innovation to get even more competitive and continue to exist long into the future.
Innovations are important and must be protected. But the short-sightedness of today is partially driven by a change in reality: the rate of technological advances is brutally fast.
The only way this will change is if there are financial and/or criminal penalties for gross neglect of private data. I think healthcare (HIPAA) is another good example, although the financial penalties need to be higher given some of the compromises and relatively small fines.
The solution to widespread hacking isn’t to make it easier for one side to find the other guys malware (quicker) while compromising your data privacy, in exchange for help from gov. Which is basically the only NSA “defence” being offered to businesses via “information sharing” programs.
And this is it: don't want to upset the promise future sales. And this is how 'dividing and conquering' works. One side speaks with 'one voice', the other with 'thousands of little voices' - and it's game.
Negotiating power is everything, and western democracies and their private and corporate citizens have absolutely none compared to autocratic regimes.
Google has no reason to hold its head high.
Sure, no one is spotless, but as it stands it's Microsoft that runs a censored search engine (Bing in China) and Apple that handed over its Chinese users iCloud encryption keys.
To be fair, you could say Apple and Microsoft had their reasons for doing so (as people including the Chinese themselves have argued). But why all the focus on Google then? Is the idea of a Chinese search engine (which has since been cancelled) worse than actually running a censored search engine such as Bing China?
It's gotten to the point where people commonly think Google is cozier with Chinese authorities than other companies, when if anything it's the opposite. That seems perverse.
But, yes, Microsoft and Apple are equally, if not more, deserving of shame.
Uh, it's even simpler. China is now the only place that a variety of things get manufactured (injection molded plastic in bulk only happens in China, for a significant example. Books in various formats, etc). If you decide to fight China, you can no longer get your X made. For a smallish manufacturing company, that would put you out of business. China sales is just an extra consideration.
The stick/carrot that China uses is market access.
The thing is, there is often no actual carrot. Zuck has been on his knees forever, as have Google, they are nowhere.
If you're Pizza Hut or KFC or some kind of brand, maybe, but anything else ...
This is speculative - as much for anyone doing business with China as for me in the US just thinking. But it's not individual factories doing the hacking and I assume it wouldn't be individual factories doing the reprisals, it would be the Chinese state, which has a reputation for a scorched earth approach.
And yeah, given the carrot often isn't very real, the idea that provokes unanimous behavior among US companies in China seems implausible.
In a lot of ways China is a lot like the US doing the gilded age when companies were at each other throats and no trick was to dirty in the game of markets.
There is this decease in US strategic thinking of looking for an superhuman single conspiracy whenever the cartel of "no longer strong enough" conspirators the author/thinker backs or belong to is not 110% successful where as the reality is often far more chaotic where you have a series of competitors(who is competing with each other and you) essentially changing the market dynamics in a way that makes the market hostile to some organizations.
The other problem is that if capitalism works as described China should be growing and the west declining as capital are supposed to flow towards stable developing(as in still poor) states as that's where the biggest payouts is, the fact that the reverse is true for America(and for the global cold war economy) proves that Smith was either wrong or that America was never a capitalist democracy.
The cold hard truth is that the next wave of growth will likely bypass the west so unless you want to become a low margin(de facto state controlled) monopoly or is small enough to ignore interstate markets you need to be in China, India and in decade or two Africa to grow, and the Koreans and Chinese have already gone there so if you are an western company you are catching up from a position of weakness.
And this question in a sense has little to do with China in particular. When someone is victimized by an individual or institution that has considerable power over them, are they reluctant to come forward? You bet they are. The only thing that can convince them is an individual or institution that can protect them.
The US government cannot protect a US company doing business in China. Is this something like an "abusive relationship", sure but so are a lot of things.
When stocks take a dive and customers flee and the public calls for rolling heads every time there’s a compromise?
How is it ok to lay the blame squarely and fully on the shoulders of the victims here?
(c) Winnie the Pooh
Whether it's Huawei supposedly spying on everybody or the Chinese government putting implants on Super Micro boards, nothing is too absurd to be spread by, out of all parties, Five eyes themselves.
Does China hack? Of course, so does the US, it even steals IP from allies. But I seriously doubt the damages for that go into the $57 billion, that's just a piracy-damages like inflated number. In reality, a whole lot of interesting innovation, particularly on the hardware level, has already been happening in China for years already. They gonna out-make the US maker movement, on a massive scale .
Yet FUD is all we get and people eat it up like the best thing ever.
Even here on HN barely anybody questioned the Super Micro narrative, even tho that Bloomberg story was super sketchy from the very beginning by not disclosing who did that audit, just like their inability to produce a sample of the chip.
Trump also never "bounced" on China, China is pretty much the only thing he doesn't bounce on, it's been his one constant since the election  and just because he throws an "I love China" in there, does not reflect or change any of his policy decisions. This is much more "I love my enemies because they are so stupid" posturing  than an declaration of actual sympathies.
Maybe there are some vacuums manufactured in USA that have BOM with only generic components from China. That's a good start, but if they just have every technical document dumped in sharepoint then there could still be problems.
If you're actually talking about vacuum cleaner marketers rather than manufacturers, I don't know what to tell you. Disintermediation is. I have more sympathy for middlemen than any consumer has, but that's not much.
Actually, there are various techniques by which IP may be protected. It is work, though. Fix your shit.
We already know the NSA did this to Huawei for multiple years.
In 1999, Enercon, a German company and leading manufacturer of wind energy equipment, developed a breakthrough generator for wind turbines. After applying for a US patent, it had learned that Kenetech, an American rival, had submitted an almost identical patent application shortly before. By the statement of a former NSA employee, it was later discovered that the NSA had secretly intercepted and monitored Enercon's data communications and conference calls and passed information regarding the new generator to Kenetech. As German intelligence services are forbidden from engaging in industrial or economic espionage, German companies are frequently complaining that this leaves them defenceless against industrial espionage from the United States. According to Wolfgang Hoffmann, a former manager at Bayer, German intelligence services are aware which companies are being targeted by US intelligence agencies, but refuse to inform the companies involved.
There and plenty threads about the NSA's, CIA's etc malfeasance.
I humbly submit that this one is about China's.
Oh and NSA doesn’t pass stolen information to private companies. That’s what China does.