Admittedly, I did not set out to make a coherent narrative. I set out to probe this troll to see if, by some wild chance, he really had any points of merit. He pulled the 'echo chamber' line and I felt obligated to reconsider my assumptions. He put forward a halfway-falsifiable hypothesis and I looked up the relevant facts on Wikipedia.
> China is growing faster because 1) it's sacrificing lots of things Americans are too rich to be willing to sacrifice for the sake of growth; 2) it's in a much earlier phase of development and thus capturing low hanging fruit.
Sure. But you don't dispute that "China is hardly known for their strong patent enforcement", right?
> Re: innovation, the Chinese aren't known for strong patent enforcement, but they're also not known for innovation either. They have lax IP enforcement because their technology sector depends on copying technology from the US.
I've heard that all before. 30+ years ago, about Japan.
> Indeed, China has been stepping up IP enforcement as of late,
> which has been correlated with an increased willingness of American companies to invest in China.
> As China develops, it has been hiring American legal experts to help them develop a sophisticated, American-style legal system,
Suckers! No, I seriously doubt the Chinese are going to go that route in the long term. They believe in cash, exporting, are extremely skeptical of this Western "intellectual property" BS, and show no desire to trust their business to any NIH legal system.
Sorry, the way a formerly-great company like Sony could fall in with the lawyer crowd and go from making the coolest highest-value products you could buy to being an IP-focused company suing their file-sharing customers, suing enthusiasts like Geohot, and getting pwned by Anonymous made me feel a little sorry for them.
> because that helps attract foreign investment. The facts don't fit your narrative
Again, my sole purpose here was to examine the "at the top is the U.S.A. with strongest patent rights" claim of causation.
> and indeed suggest the opposite one.
I don't see anything you've said which supports that.