Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Feds Bust Chinese Firm's Hybrid Car Data Heist

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the pesky-agents-of-the-f-b-i dept.

Businesses 203

coondoggie writes "An FBI investigation has led a Michigan couple to be charged with stealing hybrid car information from GM to use in a Chinese auto outfit. A federal indictment charged Yu Qin, aka Yu Chin, 49, and his wife, Shanshan Du, aka Shannon Du, 51, of Troy, Michigan with conspiracy to possess trade secrets without authorization, unauthorized possession of trade secrets, and wire fraud. One of the individuals was also charged with obstruction of justice, said Barbara McQuade, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan in a statement. GM estimates that the value of the stolen documents is over $40 million."

cancel ×

203 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yu (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#32996830)

Yu got served.

Re:Yu (5, Funny)

Reilaos (1544173) | about 4 years ago | (#32996868)

Du's were paid.

Re:Yu (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997192)

Pepul are under arrest.

I don't know what we're doing.

Re:Yu (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997212)

Yu can't handle the truth!

Re:Yu (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#32996988)

So, if I read this correctly, Shannon Du Yu Chin? Sorry, but someone had to say it.

Re:Yu (2, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 4 years ago | (#32997332)

So, if I read this correctly, Shannon Du Yu Chin? Sorry, but someone had to say it.

Too bad she wasn't getting the information that way... then the investigators would have asked the others involved... did shi du yu?

Re:Yu (2, Funny)

RMingin (985478) | about 4 years ago | (#32997724)

No, no, no.

Shannon Du, Yu Chin.

Did Du do Yu?

Re:Yu (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997240)

What a shitty country. Can't make anything on their own, so they steal.

Re:Yu (2, Funny)

hannson (1369413) | about 4 years ago | (#32997532)

Trick me once, shame one me.... Trick me twice, shame on Yu!

Re:Yu (1, Flamebait)

MachDelta (704883) | about 4 years ago | (#32998032)

Don't worry Mr. Bush, you'll get it one day!

Re:Yu (1)

Benaiah (851593) | about 4 years ago | (#32998246)

Is this revenge for arresting Stern Hu?
They got Hu, Lets get Yu!

Sorry that was bad.
I guess at least 'Merica doesnt treat industral espionage as treason like China.

Re:Yu (2, Funny)

tchdab1 (164848) | about 4 years ago | (#32998526)

Apparently Hu was on first.

Re:Yu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998632)

Chin up, Yu. You'll be bailed out of this and held up as a true patriot.

Oh noes (2, Funny)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#32996834)

Now theirs will crash just like ours!

Re:Oh noes (1, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#32996910)

What was the last Chinese Car Manufacturer that even penetrated the US market to damage the sales of US companies?

I get that trade secrets are trade secrets, but documents worth $40 Million? To who? It's not like you would have lost $40 Million had they been delivered.

Re:Oh noes (5, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 4 years ago | (#32996978)

No, they would be busting the US (and other entities) of their segment of the Chinese and Asian markets.

For instance, Buick is a huge brand [wikipedia.org] in China

Re:Oh noes (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#32997150)

Well, I was not aware of that. I wish I could retract my statement.

Re:Oh noes (1)

AnEducatedNegro (1372687) | about 4 years ago | (#32997230)

and now you understand why the government bailed out GM.

Re:Oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32996990)

General Motors competes in China.

Re:Oh noes (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 4 years ago | (#32996994)

It's not like you would have lost $40 Million had they been delivered.

Maybe not, but Yu is probably going to lose at least 10 years.

Re:Oh noes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997056)

I assume that you are unaware of how important the Chinese market is for GM. Here is a recent article about it: China sales overtake U.S. for first time [suntimes.com] . Chinese car companies don't have to come over here, they can hurt GM at home.

And $40 million dollars doesn't seem unreasonable. That's only about 2000 vehicles at average US prices.

Re:Oh noes (2, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 4 years ago | (#32997094)

What was the last Chinese Car Manufacturer that even penetrated the US market to damage the sales of US companies?

Consider the exact opposite situation: General Motors has a significant presence in China. These documents could damage General Motors operations in China. And that might be worth $40 million.

Re:Oh noes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997106)

Contrary to the opinion of the ignorant masses in the USA, the universe does not revolve around Old Glory. The Chinese companies that may have received these stolen secrets need not export a single automobile to make $40 million worth of documents worth a hell of a lot more (to them), as their own domestic sales potential is huge.

And of course, the Chinese won't stop there, either. From China, this data will be available to any third-party with the right amount of cash (or other considerations), even countries at the raw end of an American embargo or trade restrictions, such as North Korea, Cuba, various others in Middle East and Africa, etc. China doesn't give a damn who America doesn't want to do business with so long as they continue to import all those cheap Chinese-made trinkets and electronics goods.

Re:Oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997334)

China doesn't give a damn who America doesn't want to do business with so long as they continue to import all those cheap Chinese-made trinkets and electronics goods.

Who is paying China to manufacture most of said goods? That's right bitch, Old Glory is.

Re:Oh noes (2, Informative)

TheEyes (1686556) | about 4 years ago | (#32998222)

And we're idiots for doing it. The Chinese have no intention of letting American companies profit from their investments in China. Now that they've dragged themselves out of the impoverished, subsistence farming society that they've been stuck in as recently as the 1970s, they're going to do their damndest to ensure that the only people who profit from the newly emergent Chinese middle class are Chinese businesses.

It's already started. Look at the recent news: Google getting kicked out of China (inch by inch, but it's happening) in favor of Baidu; Westerners being arrested on trumped-up or even outright faked charges; Chinese hackers stealing billions of dollars worth of company secrets.

"Goodbye, American businesses! Hope the door hitting you on the way out didn't hurt too much! Don't worry about the factories or newly educated workforce you created in this country; we'll take good care of them, creating products to compete with you!"

Re:Oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998834)

Hmm, Baidu seems to work pretty well:

Baidu Search: Chung King Express [baidu.com]

You know my ex-wife was Chinese, I should never have let her go... sigh... she was the best chance of having kids with a decent future...

Re:Oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997144)

I get that trade secrets are trade secrets, but documents worth $40 Million? To who? It's not like you would have lost $40 Million had they been delivered.

It is one thing for the RIAA to claim millions in losses for every 1 song downloaded over a P2P network, and quite another for GM to claim $40 million for a document. Now I don't know exactly WHAT document they are talking about, so it may or may not be worth it, but unlike the RIAA it is not an automatically ridiculous claim.

There are certain technologies that are not produced in China. There are certain manufacturing and quality assurance processes that are not well known in China. There are a whole slew of things that the Chinese still haven't been able to "copy". And a lot of these things take a large investment of time and money in order to initially develop, which is exactly why it is worth the trouble of feeding a "spy" to go steal them.

One more thing is, imagine that the document in question only cost $100,000 to create. That is, the development of whatever process in question only cost that much. But, having this research done and in place, it has a $40 million value when applied to the Chinese market? The only far stretch there is a single piece of research only costing $100,000. Big Auto sells cars in China, with varying degrees of success. They are competing against other import car manufacturers, and of course, the Chinese auto manufacturers too. If the Chinese auto manufacturers just steal all their knowledge (yes there is a difference between being smart and reverse engineering a design, and out right stealing designs and processes) then that is a serious blow to competition.

This is not a downloaded mp3, there is a tangible value. A $40 million loss in Chinese and tangent markets is not a ridiculous claim depending on what documents were stolen. Its not the value of the paper we're talking about here.

With Jews YOU LOSE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32996844)

That's how they win. They win by making YOU lose. And don't get me started on the fucking chinkos and spics.

More demonizing of the Chinese! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32996856)

Can't these guys get a break?

Re:More demonizing of the Chinese! (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 4 years ago | (#32997394)

No breaks will be had. They just need to try harder. I mean really, they had an oil spill too and they resorted to using chop sticks. I can't make this shit up.

smog (4, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | about 4 years ago | (#32996876)

Way to go, FBI. We're already trying our best to fight the Chinese government's dragging their heels on environmental reform. Now we want them to do it without stealing any green technologies?

chump change (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 4 years ago | (#32996942)

$40 million? that's ALL it's worth? international small claims court.

Re:smog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997102)

They can license the technology. It's not like they can't afford it.

Re:smog (2, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | about 4 years ago | (#32998516)

They publish 6x the amount of research papers we do and spend 20% more on research. How come we aren't stealing from them?

Re:smog (4, Funny)

sesshomaru (173381) | about 4 years ago | (#32998808)

What would we do with the stuff we steal? Send it back to China to be built in a Chinese factory?

Competitive advantage for the USA? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32996896)

Umm, don't we want China to steal all the GM tech they possibly can, so they won't be competitive either?

Re:Competitive advantage for the USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997268)

I believe parent was a joke?

Re:Competitive advantage for the USA? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 4 years ago | (#32997700)

You assume that it can't get worse than GM. Well, it can [youtube.com] .

Re:Competitive advantage for the USA? (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | about 4 years ago | (#32998702)

Damn your youtube link...I sat watching car wrecks and whatnot for like an hour because of that link...

Re:Competitive advantage for the USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997994)

GM wasn't competitive because of all its legacy costs. It's technology is much improved. The Malibu won a JD power award this year. The old adage that American cars are shit is generally untrue nowadays.

Re:Competitive advantage for the USA? (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32998176)

Get back to me in 20 years. My whole family bought all GM, for many years. Then they screwed my dad, that was the end of it. We all now drive toyotas. When their upfront quality and quality 10-15 years later on those cars is good then we can see about buying them again.

Re:Competitive advantage for the USA? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32998696)

Flamebait? Why because the 2000 silverado was a total POS?

Sorry, but ford lost my buisness years before, at least by bringing back the very popular in Europe Fiesta they are trying.

I forgot to add, when GM has paid back every dime the government gave it and achieved the other goals I mentioned then I might buy one of their cars.

just think of it as "proactive outsourcing" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32996912)

sooner or later this "secret" would have ended up at the chinese manufacturing plant.

Must have been for export (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#32996982)

Hybrids are a bit of a joke, efficiency wise so I have my doubts about a domestic market for them in China. But Chinese car makers could compete with the Japanese, etc in the export market. But you'd expect that they would get found out. Maybe the immediate objective was to sell a complete system within china and let the buyer take the rap for the stolen tech.

Re:Must have been for export (4, Insightful)

CaptainJeff (731782) | about 4 years ago | (#32997026)

Bit of a joke? What exactly would that be?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm

I've owned a 2006 Civic Hybrid for the past four years and calculate the savings based on my driving habits and the cost of gas every year. It recouped its cost over a year ago and has currently saved me well over $1000. It also pollutes less. So...why is this a joke?

Re:Must have been for export (0)

XanC (644172) | about 4 years ago | (#32997086)

I'm not sure it pollutes less.

Even if you consider carbon dioxide to be pollution, you have to compare that against the process of manufacturing and disposing of a Big Honkin' Battery. Which is a messy deal.

Re:Must have been for export (4, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 4 years ago | (#32997232)

*voice of Kevin Spacey villain in Superman*
WRONG!

http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/environment/recycle/battery/index.html [toyota.co.jp]

The "Big Honkin' Battery" you refer to is fully recycled. Perhaps research a bit before spouting off?

Re:Must have been for export (2, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | about 4 years ago | (#32997282)

...and that means that the manufacture and disposal slash recycling are processes that use no nasty chemicals? I really doubt it.

But sure, as long as you can say the word "recycling" that means everything's okay, regardless of how efficient or clean the process is.

Re:Must have been for export (3, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 4 years ago | (#32997372)

Right. Because manufacturing isn't dirty. And construction isn't dirty. And transportation isn't dirty. Newsflash: You can have processes that aren't that environmentally friendly, but with proper toxin containment and material handling procedures, still operate in an environmentally responsible way.

Re:Must have been for export (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998956)

And of course the Chinese version will be cheaper because they will happily use nasty chemicals if they are cheaper, and dispose of them for free in the nearest river. And we all know what their version of "recycling" is like.

Re:Must have been for export (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997382)

You have anything more substantial than the smiley-glad-hands PR document published by the Marketing department of the company who sells the damn things? What do they use for the electrolyte? Is there any chemical treatment needed to reuse the metals? What are the chemicals involved? How many orphans are sacrificed in the process? Are THEIR bodies also recycled? How many chemicals are being used in THAT process?

Re:Must have been for export (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997114)

Because if you look at the European market, you'll see a dozen models that get as good or better mileage than any hybrid available in the US.

Re:Must have been for export (3, Interesting)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about 4 years ago | (#32997358)

Because it was a 30,000 dollar car, and I can but a ton of gas for 15,000 dollars.

Also - my 04 Civic Coupe gets 45+ miles per gallon the freeway.

Re:Must have been for export (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32998194)

And what would the mileage be like in the same car with a small turbo diesel?

Changed the batteries yet? (1)

Rix (54095) | about 4 years ago | (#32998200)

It's likely you'll wipe out any savings when you do.

Re:Must have been for export (3, Interesting)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 4 years ago | (#32998342)

Bit of a joke? What exactly would that be? http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm [usatoday.com] I've owned a 2006 Civic Hybrid for the past four years and calculate the savings based on my driving habits and the cost of gas every year. It recouped its cost over a year ago and has currently saved me well over $1000. It also pollutes less. So...why is this a joke?

Except if you're calculating the savings based on cost of gas and driving habits alone, you're missing a major part of the equation. Did you include the $23000 it cost you to buy a new car, as opposed to continuing to maintain/repair and feed gas into your old one? Or if this was your very first car, did you do the calculations for getting a cheap used car vs new car, and take the price difference into account?

If you absolutely had to get a new car, did you look a the 2006 Civic -- 10-12k cheaper than the Hybrid, with gas mileage that's not appreciably worse? Did you take into account that 10-12k price difference in your calculations?

When you look at the miles you drive without taking into account the base cost, you're only seeing part of the picture needed to determine if you recouped your cost. And unless you drive a 40-50k miles a year, your costs have not been recouped. (I did a breakdown of the math in a comment some time back, and showed that it would take gas in the range of $8-9/gallon to recoup costs over a five year period at 12k a year; or $5-6/gallon to recoup them if you assumed you had to buy a new car and calculated based on price difference.)

Re:Must have been for export (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998704)

For him, the comparison would be the car he would have bought instead of the car he did buy.
Or, if you want to expand it - the cars he was considering buying vs the car he bought.

That's not to say your comparisons are invalid, but to point out there is more then one way to
look at it.

Re:Must have been for export (2, Interesting)

Idbar (1034346) | about 4 years ago | (#32998842)

He probably meant the GM hybrids, such as the Yukon, Escalade, Silverado and Tahoe. Now, that's what I think is a joke. :)

Re:Must have been for export (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997696)

Hybrids are a bit of a joke, efficiency wise so I have my doubts about a domestic market for them in China.

Hybrids are pretty damn impressively efficient if applied to a medium-small vehicle used mainly in city and near-by suburbs. The joke is when you try to apply the same concept to a huge SUV. Or when the majority of your driving is out of the cities. One size does not fit all.

But you'd expect that they would get found out.

How? I'll remind a lot of readers here that these "secrets" are not always about the some new automotive technology. Manufacturers have huge teams of engineers that tackle many manufacturing processes as well. How do you increase the reliability of the manufacturing processes? How do you build more cars in the same plant in less time? How do you paint more cars with less wasted water? How do you automate lubricant application? How can you be sure the engine is ready to run at 8,000RPM right off the line without "breaking-in"? This is just the tip of the ice berg of what kind of "secrets" are out there, that would not be obvious just by looking at the car.

Silly spy's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997068)

How stupid could you be stealing from a government agency?

Not Patents (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 4 years ago | (#32997128)

This story is tagged "patents", but it's not about patents. The copied data was a trade secret. Patents are by definition publicly published information. Trade secrets are different. Patents are easily abusable government monopolies that often violate free speech. Actual industrial secrets are essential to remaining competitive, as this case demonstrates. It's cheaper, faster and less risky for a Chinese (or any other) corporation to copy the data that GM (or anyone else) produced over a period of time and at a significant cost, than it is for that competitor to produce its own. The secret was violated by violating agreements and other deception.

Re:Not Patents (1)

thunderdanp (1481263) | about 4 years ago | (#32997320)

Patents are easily abusable government monopolies that often violate free speech.

Sounds like someone has a bone to pick.

Re:Not Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997348)

The secret was violated by violating agreements and other deception.

That's why we have laws against breech of contract and fraud. To suggest that this form of intellectual property is anymore legitimate than any other form of intellectual property just means you don't understand the libertarian arguments against intellectual property.

Read this book: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Re:Not Patents (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#32998346)

That book doesn't really say Trade Secrets are illegitimate. It says the legal action against the third-party to whom the "breaker" would be selling the secrets to is questionable, but then justifies it because "it could be argued that the competitor Y is acting in conspiracy with or as an accomplice of employee A to violate the (contractual) rights of trade secret holder X."

I don't get your point. Are you saying Y should be able to get away with using data obtained by a breach of contract of A? Then even if A got caught X would still be fucked, because Y would get away with using the stolen data. Companies would have no disincentive to try and bribe other companies' employees.

Or if you're not saying they should get away, what's the problem with trade secrets?

Re:Not Patents (3, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 4 years ago | (#32997518)

How do patents ever violate free speech?

You can talk about them, copy them, repeat them, etc. You just can't do* what is described without permission from the patent holder.

* the definition of "do" varies by jurisdiction.

Re:Not Patents (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 4 years ago | (#32998140)

Computer programming is a form of speech, which cannot be performed freely because patents prevent it (in countries where software is patentable).

Re:Not Patents (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 4 years ago | (#32998912)

A patent doesn't stop you writing and reading the code. It just stops you running it.

So the speech part remains allowed.

Re:Not Patents (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | about 4 years ago | (#32998332)

How do patents ever violate free speech?

You can talk about them, copy them, repeat them, etc. You just can't do* what is described without permission from the patent holder.

* the definition of "do" varies by jurisdiction.

The problem is exactly because of your disclaimer. It used to be that patents covered physical processes to produce goods. The Singer sewing machine, the cotton gin: these were innovative machines which were worthy of patent protection, to encourage that kind of "giant leap" technology that moves the world forward.

Nowadays patents cover obvious, often trivial actions like double clicks and common business strategies that have existed for decades (oh, but now they're on the internet, so they have to be new!) Patents these days are used by trolls and large corporations not to protect new innovations, but to starve other companies of old, established best practices, effectively cutting off access to what by rights should belong to the public domain with an army of lawyers and complicit court districts. While other countries are moving forward, developing technologies that will advance clean energy, computing and aerospace, US corporations are busily enriching themselves by leeching off of the public good, sending the country into a downward spiral of intellectual decay.

Re:Not Patents (1)

Diantre (1791892) | about 4 years ago | (#32998562)

Actually I think you can do whatever you want with information contained in a patent, as long as you don't profit from it.

Re:Not Patents (1)

mochan_s (536939) | about 4 years ago | (#32998364)

From what I see, this is what happened. They worked as engineers at GM and they were let go. Du then copied her work files and then started a company where they used the GM files to further their company. They probably rationalized that since they had worked on the project, they had a right to use it for their personal company.

I've heard variants of this in a few places. There was a software company who let a few engineers go but they started a competitive business with the code they had worked on but didn't own. Since they wrote parts of the code, they probably felt they could use it.

I dont understand.... (1)

BatGnat (1568391) | about 4 years ago | (#32997184)

they flew all the way from China to America to steal hybrid plans.

They could have just gone to Japan and stole from Toyota, much closer to home....

Re:I dont understand.... (5, Insightful)

Favonius Cornelius (1691688) | about 4 years ago | (#32997288)

The Japanese arent stupid enough to let it happen. Only in America do we open our doors to anyone and give everything away.

Re:I dont understand.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997306)

Does Toyota employ many Chinese people? I don't know, but somehow I'd guess they don't. It may be easier for them to get an "in" with GM than with Toyota.

Re:I dont understand.... (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about 4 years ago | (#32997374)

You really think they aren't already doing this? Honestly?

Re:I dont understand.... (4, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | about 4 years ago | (#32997442)

they flew all the way from China to America to steal hybrid plans.

They could have just gone to Japan and stole from Toyota, much closer to home....

In America, hiring Chinese people is not unusual. In Japan, it is. Americans view racism as a very bad thing, mostly due to our history of slavery. Japan is not the USA.

Negative on that, sonny (4, Funny)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 4 years ago | (#32998126)

Nope, In America, hiring anyone WHO ISN'T an H-1B, H-2B, H-2C, O-1, L-1, P-1, P-2, P-3, etc., etc., etc., or any other foreign visa worker, is UNUSUAL.

Hiring an actual American worker .....now THAT'S unusual!!!!

Be sure to send all your money to Wall Street...

Re:I dont understand.... (0, Flamebait)

guidryp (702488) | about 4 years ago | (#32997446)

"They could have just gone to Japan and stole from Toyota, much closer to home...."

The Japanese aren't so eager to hire cheaper Chinese engineers to save a few bucks.

Meanwhile GM was probably lobbying to expand the H1-B program to get more cheap Chinese Labor...

Re:I dont understand.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998380)

It would be more accurate to say that jewpan is a backwards, third-world, racism-infested shithole. It's not like they'd hire white people either.

really? $40M? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997324)

I don't think GM itself ever even made $40M profit from their hybrid undertakings (as small a sum as it is in the industry).

Values (2, Funny)

Wowsers (1151731) | about 4 years ago | (#32997350)

"GM estimates that the value of the stolen documents is over $40 million."

Is that using the same method of value calculation that the RIAA / MPAA use?

Re:Values (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997688)

Or is that the "Street Value"

Re:Values (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 4 years ago | (#32997844)

No, it's the amount of the next bailout they were expecting to receive after implementing the plans outlined in those documents. ~

E911 Document Phrack Neidorf (1)

tommeke100 (755660) | about 4 years ago | (#32998056)

Or Bellsouths way of calculating the E911 Document's worth of $80,000 when the same information could be found in a technical catalog available to the public for a couple of bucks.

Re:Values (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998066)

Research cost money. If you pay for research an your competitors do not guess who gets to sell their cars for less?
successful research is worth even more. Without the proper team, 40 million may only tell you what does not work.

WHAT? GM MADE HYBRIDS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32997412)

Can anyone even name one GM hybrid vehicle.

Re:WHAT? GM MADE HYBRIDS? (2, Informative)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | about 4 years ago | (#32997494)

Here, let me google that for you.

http://www.gm.com/vehicles/hybrids-and-electric/hybrids/ [gm.com]

Re:WHAT? GM MADE HYBRIDS? (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#32997698)

I'm not clicking on that.

I'm calling the FBI on yu.

Re:WHAT? GM MADE HYBRIDS? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32998732)

SUVs?

You would be better off just buying a reasonably sized vehicle. You would save money both on the car and the gas.

Re:WHAT? GM MADE HYBRIDS? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | about 4 years ago | (#32997614)

Tahoe, Malibu, Silverado...

No surprise (0, Flamebait)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 years ago | (#32997790)

Asians have a different mindset when it comes to things like this. Anything the other guy makes is okay to copy. Been that way in every industry forever; doesn't matter if it's cars, pharmaceuticals, software, nuclear power plants, or whatever.

Re:No surprise (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32998738)

We used too to. Everyone does until they are the ones making the new stuff. That famous Sam Addams painting is of him wearing a shirt that was made on a "pirated" loom.

Re:No surprise (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998754)

Ahhhh souuu... vely vely cunning, we Asians are... Especially ALL of us Asians, from India to the Far East.

Wow.. Way to brush half the Earth's population in one stroke.

Re:No surprise (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | about 4 years ago | (#32998850)

Yes, obviously someone has never been to Japan, where it isn't even OK to sell used video games because of the IP laws.

Why not just wait... (3, Insightful)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 4 years ago | (#32997938)

Risking jail time for a 'trade secret' (which seems to carry more weight than national secrets that might be protecting lives) seems to somewhat pointless. Why not just wait until GM implements whatever super-secret-mega-tech in a vehicle and then reverse engineer it? Once GM 'publish' it in this form without patent protection it seems to me it is fair game.

This is a real problem.. details below. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998226)

You think the Russians had spies? They're nothing compared to the Chinese.

This is not individual actors out for their own gain, this is a concerted effort over the last 30 years to get China on par with the latest tech, by hook or crook.

While there's nothing wrong with that per-se, the thing that everyone seems to be ignoring is that China is not an open society and all this maneuvering is to get more Geopolitical Power for the Communist Party. A non-representative, totalitarian regime bent on imposing its will across the region and the world. People assume once China is "caught up" they'll follow international rules and "play fair". This is a fairy tale, they are out to dominate.. and will take whatever steps necessary to make sure that happens, economic or military. Their own population is just a tool towards this endgame.

Ever wonder how Pakistan got nukes? China.

Wonder how North Korea got nukes through Pakistan? China made the intro.
That way, their hands were clean but they were able to create a permanent buffer zone on the Korean peninsula and pre-empt any German equivalent of reunification which would put a functioning democracy on their doorstep.

China is playing a dangerous game and people who think prosperity will make them fat and happy are completely mistaken.. the economy is a tool for them both to placate their population and to wield as a weapon on the international stage.

Re:This is a real problem.. details below. (3, Funny)

Renraku (518261) | about 4 years ago | (#32998294)

If I recall correctly we busted the Russians good. They stole some oil pipeline control software, and we knew they were going to steal it. So we wrote in some malware and a few months later, boom, one of their pipelines explodes because of said malware. The Japanese let the Chinese steal a design for bad capacitors which ended up in everyone's electronics. Perhaps we should let them have a design for a car who's doors weld themselves closed and then the engine catches fire.

Surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998288)

Chinese sleeper cells strike again.

This is just silly (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32998902)

If anyone at GM had any common sense, they'd be encouraging the rest of the world to copy their business, it could save the company.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>