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!

Chinese Intellectual Property Acquisition Tactics Exposed

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the farm-enough-gold-and-anything-is-yours dept.

Businesses 398

hackingbear writes "In an interview published in Sina.com.cn, Chinese rail engineers gave a detailed account of the history, motivation, and technologies behind the Chinese high-speed rail system. More interestingly, they blatantly revealed the strategies and tactics used in acquiring high-speed rail tech from foreign companies (Google translation of Chinese original). At the beginning, China developed its own high-speed rail system known as the Chinese Star, which achieved a test speed of 320km/h; but the system was not considered reliable or stable enough for operation. So China decided to import the technologies. The leaders instructed, 'The goal of the project is to boost our economy, not theirs.' A key strategy employed is divide-and-conquer: by dividing up the technologies of the system and importing multiple different technologies across different companies, it ensures no single country or company has total control. 'What we do is to exchange market for technologies. The negotiation was led by the Ministry of Railway [against industry alliances of the exporting countries]. This uniform executive power gave China huge advantage in negotiations,' said Wu Junrong, 'If we don't give in, they have no choice. They all want a piece of our huge high speed rail project.' For example, [Chinese locomotive train] CRH2 is based on Japanese tech, CRH3 on German tech, and CRH5 on French tech, all retrofit for Chinese rail standards. Another strategy is buy-to-build. The first three trains were imported as a whole; the second three were assembled with imported parts; subsequent trains contain more and more Chinese made parts."

cancel ×

398 comments

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

Savvy business dealings (5, Insightful)

misophist (465263) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733658)

This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.

Re:Savvy business dealings (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733704)

yes, everyone and the dog can own AmeriKKKa!

See? this Chinese guys don't give a crap about telling it like it is. Meanwhile FAILmerica is fighting for teh freedomz!!

and failing

Like college and grad school (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733782)

Those guys were always collaborating on massive cheating schemes. No surprise here.

Re:Like college and grad school (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733822)

How is that cheating? They're working by the philosophy of not putting all their eggs in one basket. That's just basic common sense.

The US uses governmental intelligence agencies to support corporations. That IS cheating.

Re:Like college and grad school (2)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733918)

Are they respecting patents on the technologies used to make those parts? And are they designing their own parts/machines or just making copies of the imported ones?

Re:Like college and grad school (1, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734338)

Oh, so they are acting in exactly the same manner as the US has in the past? And it was ok then, but not ok if yellow people are doing it?

The way I see it, the elephant in the room is xenophobia and racism (or, at the very least, rabid nationalism). The US companies subvert patents when they can. So do the Chinese. The only difference is the level to which they can get away with violations, not the goals or methods employed.

Re:Like college and grad school (3, Interesting)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734356)

My understanding is yes to all. But likely not completely. I have family retired from GE loco, years ago they sold around 50 locomotives to China. First 5 were complete shipped from USA, next 20 were increasingly built in china. Last 25 were left to china. So they bought licenses, made changes, and likely wouldn't hesitate to go beyond the license if desired. GE is probably betting they will be ahead of china by the time the contact is done, and that it is beyond china to maintain the ability, let alone expand and compete. Exactly what patents are ment to be, a head start, but not a permanent monopoly (for the inventors).

What corporations? (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733992)

What corporations are state owned US intelligence agency backed corporations? Name some.

Just name one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734114)

Some?! How about naming a single one for starters. Maybe he meant France?

Re:Just name one! (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734190)

Um, okay. [forbes.com] In-Q-Tel: [wikipedia.org] In 1999 we chartered ... In-Q-Tel. ... While we pay the bills, In-Q-Tel is independent of CIA. - George Tenet. I don't know about you, but if someone is paying all of my bills it'd be hard for me to claim independence.

Re:Savvy business dealings (1)

ceCA (675081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734266)

yes, everyone and the dog can own AmeriKKKa!

What is the name of the DOG ???

Re:Savvy business dealings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733706)

Yeah, but it's China. You're supposed to be all scared and freaked out and stuff. ;)

The "Red Menace" and all that. Gotta have something to drum up patriotism now that the former Soviet Union are buddies.

I suppose (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733758)

But what about the old fashioned way of exploiting the spoils of war? Between that and open immigration, we built atomic weapons and landed on the moon.

Its a bit unseemly to just purchase stuff and figure out how it works....

Re:I suppose (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733810)

Think of it like european scholars rediscovering ancient works from the muslims and eventually doing their own major works again.

Re:I suppose (1)

Tim99 (984437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734332)

Or 19th Century Americans ignoring europeans' patents and copyrights until they had built their own industries?

Re:Savvy business dealings (2, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733762)

And for anyone this is 'news' to, they are retards. The rest of us knew years ago.

Re:Savvy business dealings (3, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733940)

It really seems no different to how other industrialized countries work. Except we do it under the guise of "free market". I thought the whole idea of capitalism is to divide and conquer, modern colonialisation.

Re:Savvy business dealings (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734094)

It's actually very different from how other countries work because of the centralized acquisition program.

Still I think that this approach is only an incremental step. The Chinese may have the end technology, but it doesn't buy them the ability to develop new technologies. That is a whole different ball game.

Re:Savvy business dealings (-1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733814)

"It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do."

China is no more an enemy than those countries, except to leftover American missionaries who fap to old Pearl S. Buck books and want to Christianize Asia.

The horny cult of Empire that drove US policy to meddle in Asia needs to die, and a superpower China should help put a stake through its heart. The US needs to feel limited and be compelled to restrain its goals and redirect its energies.

Westerners who fuck with China will get what their predecessors elsewhere got, which is "played by smarter people":

"Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan
          brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the
          Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of
            the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: "A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the
              East."

Re:Savvy business dealings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733926)

Westerners who fuck with China will get what their predecessors elsewhere got

Crushing victories? I don't get it.

Re:Savvy business dealings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734018)

Western "approaches" to Asia weren't exactly victories, you know.

I could cite examples, but that would be offensive to we both.

When you lose your job thank your enemies. (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734020)

In China, India, and those other countries.

Re:Savvy business dealings (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734326)

You're right about the benefits to the US having a rival that makes the US recognize some limits. But you ignore the problems that come from the rival being a country like China, which is a mafia state. Especially when China gets its way instead of the US getting its way. While the US can be pretty bad, China can be much worse.

You also somehow ignore that Westerners have been fucking with China for at least 600 years, which until the last few decades effectively set China back about 600 years. And even China's rise has been through Westerners fucking with China, which has left China a polluted, exploited wasteland atop which some rich and powerful Chinese people hold total power in partnership with the Westerners who moved their manufacturing and banking there.

When Kipling wrote the lines you quote, the West was at the peak of fucking with China. There are far more Easterners buried wherever Westerners hustled, or invaded, the East. Don't be so complacent about the harmlessness of either China or the West.

Re:Savvy business dealings (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733948)

Step back for a second and look at what's happening.

On one hand, the companies giving up their seed corn aren't being forced to literally at gun point. They're deciding that at this moment, they're better living another day and starving tomorrow. So in a sense it's a win-win scenario.

On the other hand, the enterprise benefiting from this exploits government backing to take a longer term view of the transaction than the companies developing the technology can afford. So in a different it's not a win/win scenario; it's a win/minimize-your-losses proposition.

So China wins here not by being more ingenious or creating new knowledge or technology, but by exploiting its ability to control the rules of the game. If you twist your vision enough, I suppose that what it is doing in this case might look like innovation.

China is a nation with tremendous human resources and ingenuity, but it *also* exploits the fact that it is the only major economic power on earth still pursuing a kind of mercantilist trade policy.

America for sale dot com. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733982)

Click here to bribe our politicians, write our laws, and download our jobs.

Re:America for sale dot com. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734330)

Ahhh, so how does it feel being a banana republic, much like one of those third world nations controlled by US corporations?

Re:Savvy business dealings (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734116)

The key part not explained is whether the tech sellers asked for and obtained a licensing fee.

Just because China wanted to build in-country, doesn't mean anyone was ripped off.

Industrial Policy (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734194)

It is more than just savvy business wheeling and dealing, since it's the Chinese government wheeling and dealing. Which means it's a monopoly: only the government agency can negotiate for that business inside China. And only the specific Chinese corps the government picks can get the business. Those picked corps are picked not necessarily for the best interests of China, but rather for whatever is in the best interest of the government officials with the power to pick them. Which might or might not be the best interests of China. That's Communism.

But it's also industrial policy, which is indeed savvy business wheeling and dealing. The US doesn't have anything like that, except for the corruption part where some industries have orgs that lobby our government to do business with foreign governments that require their government to mediate such international trade, or where the US government does occasionally require our government to play that role in foreign trade, where the orgs use some method other than competitive bids/RFPs to pick which members get the business. The US could have an industrial policy as effective in strategy as China's extreme one, but without requiring the government to actually conduct the negotiations. Just review the completed deals to ensure they comply with the policy, perhaps just random samples plus any over a large value threshold (which would pay in taxes enough to fund the review).

Instead, the US abandons industrial policy, and therefore industrial strategy. And watches China ascend at our expense. Though the top US capitalists have already invested in China's industries, so China's gain is their gain, while they've divested from US liabilities, so our expense is not theirs.

Re:Savvy business dealings (3, Interesting)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734226)

This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.

Yeah, this is surprising because everyone expects the Chinese to be the sick man of Asia and a third world run by a regime. They actually did good business. They didn't let one supplier control their train systems while at the same time they built up an indigenous train industry realizing it is vital to their country.

What is surprising that those companies were not able to bribe the select chiefs and get an unfair position, or that some dictator didn't just buy the whole train system and charge it to some world bank loan but though of the future - far far into the future of developing a domestic industry.

And, I wish we had trains for long distance travel in the US. Traveling by car at 70mph for hours and hours is tiring and there is always the prospect of a problem with a car and being stuck somewhere. Airplane travel is marred by the security checks and delays and long wait times.

I guess this would be a stern counter-example to the service industry philosophy. China isn't content on being the factory workhorse while the US controls the technology. China would like to catch up on technical know-how as well and build their own industry.

Re:Savvy business dealings (2)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734274)

This sounds to me more like savvy business wheeling and dealing. It's no different than what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans would do.

It sounds like savvy business practice, and to some degree it is, but it is not at all the same as what the Indians, Japanese or Koreans do.

The Chinese Government has a great deal more control over their economy than other countries. Well, more to the point, they're willing to exert far greater control over their economy than most other nations are.

This is nothing new. Some of us have been trying to sound the warning about the myth of the China Market [imagicity.com] for years.

Re:Savvy business dealings (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734320)

Or Boeing vs Airbus with a bit of help from taxpayer funded spooks.
The major problem with this approach, as shown by Boeing, is that if you take the design details without knowing why something is designed in such a way you can run into a lot of problems.

first chink! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733662)

ahh, so!

This is news? (5, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733668)

The story is not that the Chinese are devious, acquisitive SOB's. It's that the west continues to be stupid enough to enable them. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646472655698844.html [wsj.com] Frist post!

Re:This is news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733830)

No, it's just shit trying to belittle a successful project.

The US's most successful consumer electronic companies are totally reliant on Japanese IC designs fab'd in China. Does that make the US "designed" do-dads failures? Of course not.

Fail (3, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733678)

This is Econ 101 shit and it's embarrassing that Western countries are selling out their high tech companies for a bunch of government debt, poisoned food and defective consumer crap.

Re:Fail (5, Insightful)

gilbert644 (1515625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733722)

Well this is the difference between a state that has long term goals of improving it countries vs. corporations that can't see beyond the next quarterly report. Maybe it is true what they say, a capitalist will sell you the rope that you will use to hang him.

Re:Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734282)

Well this is the difference between a state that has long term goals of improving it countries vs. corporations that can't see beyond the next quarterly report. Maybe it is true what they say, a capitalist will sell you the rope that you will use to hang him.

And what is wrong with the Chinese wanting to improve their economy? Don't they have that RIGHT?

(Other than the pollution they cause)

10,000m curve radius (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733698)

One of the points mentioned is the desire to design for a 10,000 meter curve radius! Now that takes aggressive land acquisition.

Re:10,000m curve radius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733732)

Land acquisition? It's China! All land belongs to the government!!!

Re:10,000m curve radius (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733842)

To be fair, Chinese property rights are slowly improving [wikipedia.org] , and compulsory purchase (in one form or another) is fairly common worldwide. After all, you've got to build bypasses...

Re:10,000m curve radius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734180)

After all, you've got to build bypasses...

No. No, by god, you don't. They are not in any way essential. It's thinking like this that gets us state-run everything.

Google Translate as the source? (2)

kervin (64171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733738)

Seriously guys?

The only source of the article is a Mandarin to English machine translation?

I'm sure nothing will get lost in that translation...

Re:Google Translate as the source? (1)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733796)

There are other articles elsewhere regarding this methodology.

The goal is fairly straightforward, trade IP for allowing the foreign company to dip into the local market. As they noted, the initial purchase is a flat purchase with some rights and eventually it progresses into full blown production. I was under the impression they were now deploying modified variants as their own brand and attempting to sale abroad. However, companies such as Kawasaki only agreed to such practices as long as their traded IP was not sold outside of China. ie, we might give you the plow, but you can't compete with our domestic plowing trade.

I've read more then one article regarding regarding this so I'm sure there are several more floating about if there is more interest on the subject. I was using an aggregater at the time so I'm unsure of the specific outlet.

Re:Google Translate as the source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733978)

> As they noted, the initial purchase is a flat purchase with some rights and eventually it progresses into full blown production

In fact, that's happening in the commercial airliner market right now. China is starting a domestic airliner to compete with the Boeing 737. At first, it will be using avionics and engines from American suppliers, but in time, those components will be sourced natively in China as that technology and know-how is transfered (by compulsory partnerships) to Chinese companies. The Chinese plane will be 10% cheaper to operate than the B737, and significantly cheaper to buy, both of which are major deals to big airlines that operate on razor thin margins: 10% better operational costs is HUGE.

Long range plans after gaining experience with a 737 class airliner are to move up the chain and produce airliners to compete with the 777 and other larger jets.

There's nothing particularly wrong with this: they're just playing the cards they were dealt in a manner that's advantageous to them. But if I were you, I would not plan to be holding any Boeing, Pratt and Whitney, or Honeywell stock over the next decade or two.

Re:Google Translate as the source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734232)

Is "compulsory partnerships" shorthand for "we buy your stuff and copy it"?

Some of their car parts have been close enough copies to fit onto other vehicles from the original manufacturer. their crash testing results have certainly been an eye opener, given a choice I'd prefer to NOT be on one of their airplanes if it's built anything at all like their car copies.

Re:Google Translate as the source? (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733868)

This is definitely a problem and might give a wrong picture of what is being said.

3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733760)

Now instead having to learn how to manufacture parts for 1 consistent line type, they have to support 3. Awesome work China.

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733776)

Yes - because every train in the US is the same you fucking idiot.

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733904)

Your point?

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733834)

No: it means they can just take the best technology from all three.

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733882)

"No: it means they can just take the best technology from all three if compatibility issues are resolvable and can be done for a reasonable amount."
Fix'd

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733932)

No, money is no object to the Chinese. The purpose is nation building.

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733972)

more effort, money, engineering, manufacturing lines, personnel, training,etc

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734086)

Those are all upsides. Within 20 years, all that effort will be the core of a thriving high tech industrial base. You're thinking too small: China has 4 times the population of the US or twice the population of the EU, you're thinking too small.

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734166)

or lots of lessons will have to be re-learned across the lines and innovation will slow because it has to be replicated 3 different ways leaving them with antiquating systems that fall behind and eventually collapse spectacularly into 3 different but collective failures..

Re:3 lines from 3 different countries? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734374)

(sorry about the repeated phrase in the previous comment)

I'm not sure the e.g. American railway model applies. The Chinese government is unlikely to let the industry fragment itself into privately run incompatible local monopolies. They're more likely to let the technologies compete for a while, and then make an executive decision when the time is right (which may well be political). With three different technologies, the long term risk is reduced, just like diversifying a portfolio (if one can afford it...).

capitalists take note (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733768)

the greatest enemy capitalism has ever known throughout the history of economics is not communism or socialism, but corporatism. a corporation is a top down autocratic organization that seeks nothing but more profit, be damned any other concerns, like fairness or egaltarianism. when they get large enough, corporations dominate their marketplace by dirty tricks like undercutting competitors prices to destroy them, and rent seeking agreements once they own the whole marketplace by colluding with other large players. ideally, a government would regulate the marketplace and even the playing field for smaller competitors against larger players (oh, you believe no government regulation results in a cleaner more perfect capitalist marketplace? you're a naive idiot). unfortunately, in the west now, corporations corrupt the government and use the government's rules and regulatory powers to not bind them, but instead entrench their marketplace positions and their powers even more

so it is in the west: democracy corrupted by corporatism. but this is but a prelude for the coming truly insidious game. see, us silly westerners have championed capitalism for a long time, but us silly westerners also have this silly anchor around our neck called democracy, respect for the individual. the chinese have no such silly limitations: the citizens have no rights, they are slaves to the autocratic system. you know, autocracy: the corporate model of governance. the future is clear: the chinese autocracy will face the world as one monolithic internally cooperating perfect autocratic corporate behemoth. and it will simply devour the rest of the world. no one can compete with them in size, leverage, production capacity, capital reserves, anything: the chinese will dominate in all regards, and just destroy all else by dominating all marketplaces all over the world

and now that our oh-so-wise supreme court has made corporate donations perfectly legal (justice roberts, you are an asshole and the most anti-american person who has ever lived: protect citizens rights, not corporation rights, you scumbag), and now that there is no need for pesky inquiries like: where the source of the money comes form, the chinese will just buy our democracy outright. multinational corporations now gleefully use chinese workers without rights to make cheap crap. the chinese autocracy will simply buy these multinational eventually and those multinationals to do their bidding in the usa instead, in reverse. the professional prostitutes on the right who will spin anything for their corporate masters (scare us with government death panels when we talk about healthcare or government censorship when we talk about net neutrality): they'll just shill for the chinese owned mutlinationals by finding the right words to spin the complete sublimation of our democracy into corporatocracy as being a Real American (tm). and if the usa has no power against this, why and how would any smaller weaker country fare in the face of the ultimate corporate behemoth known as chinese autocracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission [wikipedia.org]

welcome to the new world. chinese autocracy+capitalism=the ultimate corporate domination of the entire world

soon we will all be slaves to the power structure in beijing. soon we will all be like the typical chinese citizen: workers without rights, chattel to work the mines and factories, nothing more. our democracy flat out bought, sold, and desecrated by multimationals following orders form beijing

that's the future folks. isn't unregulated capitalism grand?

Re:capitalists take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733864)

Boy all you have to do is stop thinking and your points make sense. Keep preaching and you're sure to gather an army of retards.

Re:capitalists take note (1, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733938)

show me where i am wrong and you have effectively opposed my points. however, just attacking me personally means you have nothing to say against my points, and therefore my points are correct

Re:capitalists take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734038)

Actually, his action of attacking you does NOT prove that your points are correct... it simply does not prove them wrong, that's all. He may have committed a logical fallacy (ad hominem), but so have you (possibly affirming the consequent).

I actually DO agree with your points, though I think there are so many other interests and factors involved that the situation is not quite so hopeless or dramatic as you put it.

Re:capitalists take note (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734054)

ok

and yet i am still waiting for a refutation, and not hearing any

Re:capitalists take note (2)

northernfrights (1653323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734012)

Wow, great retort there Anonymous Coward. Don't try to refute anything, just insult the poster. Lemme guess, you have no 'refudations' in mind, you just can't sit there and let someone talk bad about the Republican's and not have a stab at them.

Re:capitalists take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734062)

Refutation rather than insults, please.

Re:capitalists take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734008)

"if the usa has no power against this, why and how would any smaller weaker country fare in the face of the ultimate corporate behemoth known as chinese autocracy?"

Believe it or not, the US is weak against these things which is why it's falling so fast to it. Other "weaker" countries still have a ways to go before the resistances built into their governments are weakened enough to fall so far.

Re:capitalists take note (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734034)

like what country?

Re:capitalists take note (0)

frist (1441971) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734052)

Why did you bother reading the story? Your sig says it all. According to you they were just doing their moral duty.

Re:capitalists take note (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734082)

intellectual property IS a joke. as you can see, the chinese have proven to you what a joke it is. the way to fight the chinese is to only do business with them and only allow their business into your country, as long as their business abides by certain standards, such as worker's rights. supporting intellectual property is not an effective strategy

furthermore, intellectual property is a concept that the chinese will just as happily wield against those in the west when their power is entrenched enough. the very idea of intellectual property is exactly the sort of anti-capitalist rent seeking monopolistic practices autocratic corporations like the chinese government engage in, that should be opposed, in the NAME OF capitalism and free markets

Re:capitalists take note (1)

JonBuck (112195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734078)

Okay. Can you clarify something for me? How do you distinguish corporatism from capitalism? You imply that there is one, but you don't expand on that. Please do.

Re:capitalists take note (3, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734120)

capitalism is the competition between equals in the marketplace. corporatism is the abuse of and domination of the marketplace by its largest players

to maintain a truly capitalistic marketplace, you need government regulation to level the playing field between the large and the small (despite what some deluded naive fools will tell you otherwise). the unfortunate reality is that currently in the west corporations simply corrupt the government's regulatory laws and enforcement apparatus to entrench their position, rather than oppose their position, as the government naturally should

i'm not saying getting corporate corruption out of our government is easy, but i am saying that it is the only way we can move forward. because unfortunately, the chinese government will simply use our own corporate corruption against us, in the form of multinational corporations interfering with our internal politics with their money. if we don't fight corporate influence of our democracy, we are facing the ultimate victory of autocracy and corporatism over capitalism and democracy in the form of the rise of china, which will use our own unfortunate collusion with corporations against us eventually, as beijing becomes the eventual master of multinationals

Re:capitalists take note (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734230)

It's the same distinction between fascism and capitalism.

In capitalism, the market players are small and numerous, and have little to no effect on the political or regulatory environment as a single polity.

In fascism, there are few large players that control the markets, and controls in-effect the political and regulatory environment.

That's how it works, from a economic point of view.

Re:capitalists take note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734126)

What China lacks is protection of the rights of the individual. Note: They do not acknowledge intellectual property rights, right to free speech, right to bear arms, etc., etc., etc.... Capitalism requires enforcement of basic rights and cannot function properly without them. People must be allowed to make decisions without coercion, to choose the best. How can you tell if a right is legitimate? If it comes at no one else's expense. A right frees you to make choices as you see fit.

This is not quite the same as the problems the USA has. No one can make a decision in almost any sector of the economy without the government interfering. The solutions presented by most people to the problems of having a fascist government in charge are usually more fascist government. This is what we have here above, as written by circletimessquare. The economic system in China is much more closer to anarchy than capitalism. Tell me circletimessquare, what are corporations made up of, if not individuals? Suddenly you lose all rights if you are a member of a company?

Re:capitalists take note (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734164)

your use of the words fascism and anarchy are completely laughable. you don't understand these terms, so your thoughts are without probative value and need not be answered

Re:capitalists take note (4, Insightful)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734142)

It is incorrect to call China an "autocracy" as it is no longer ruled by one person. No politician there nowaday has the clout of Mao or Deng. It may be a totalitarian instead. Also if you actually go see in China, the workers do not have as much "rights" because there are so many people competing for works, especially blue collar labors. They have millions of new graduates every year entering workforce, for example. It is actually more of a market phenomena than government slavery. Generally the business market there are a lot more competitive than the US in many areas, while lacking in others.

Also one reason that large corporations dominate more and more is because the barrier in many fields are very high. For example, nobody can start a petro or pharmaceutical companies easily without billion dollars of investments to meet all the safety and quality requirements. There are actually large number of small businesses in China now, resulting in intense competition and quality problem. People, with consumerist minds, don't understand that high safety, environmental and quality standard tend to cause consolidation of suppliers and resulting corporations will have more control over the market. They will complain one way or the other.

Re:capitalists take note (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734158)

surely you can agree that the oligarchy (you are correct, better terminology needed) of the grumpy old men in beijing is a natural fit for corporations. and that the natural trajectory of our economic future is the eventual consolidation of multinationals under their control. the chinese are rapidly coming to own them. that is the threat i am worried about. does it bother you? or do you think this isn't the future?

Re:capitalists take note (2)

edfardos (863920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734168)

Well said!! End free trade with non-free countries.... or try communism, it's great! Please choose while you still can.

--edfardos

Re:capitalists take note (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734188)

that really is how you do it. you expect standards for the companies and countries who wish to do business with in your country, or you don't trade with them. that's really how to do it. unfortunately, the free flow of money in our politics means the opposite will happen: our standards will be destroyed under the corruptive power of corporate money, soon to be under the control of beijing

it will be very hard to fight the corrupting influence of money in our politics (thanks roberts court, you fucking antiamerican scumbags), but it is the only way forward

Re:capitalists take note (2, Interesting)

atticus9 (1801640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734186)

Consumers have a ton of power as well, they could have chosen at any point simply not to buy cheap imported goods and it would've ended right then and there. It's only because hundreds of millions of people are buying those goods every week that the engine keeps going.

Likewise China's rise is largely due to a billion people working as hard as they can to make the country (and their own lives) the best it can be. If Americans (speaking in generalities) had the same resolve/objective world politics would be a lot different right now. But from my own experience, the vast majority of our work force is seeking to live a comfortable life while contributing as little as possible to the greater organization, citing rhetoric similar to the above, but toned down.

I don't really know what to say, if you have one group of people trying to be as lazy as possible, and another group of people trying to become as strong as possible. The latter will always win. Blaming corporations, capitalists, or politicians won't change that fact.

Honestly I think it would be good experience for everyone in the US to start a business, hire a bunch of employees, and see how fun it is to put up with a bunch people constantly shirking their responsibilities to go have fun, and then blaming you (as the immoral, omnipotent, profit-seeking, villain / business owner) for every bad thing that happens.

Re:capitalists take note (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734202)

"Consumers have a ton of power as well, they could have chosen at any point simply not to buy cheap imported goods and it would've ended right then and there"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

you're a funny person

Re:capitalists take note (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734200)

There is a movement dedicated to forwarding what you identify as corporatism.

- Fascism -

When corporations take over the government of a nation-state, what we get is a fascist state.

Re:capitalists take note (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734250)

you have to use your terms more precisely. fascism is a nice scare word, but what you describe as an accepted ideology died in failure in world war ii. you need to update your terminology. i am not interested in debate about how and why fascism is corporatism, i am interested in defeating corporatism. as such, fascism, is just a bugaboo, a scary word, and not a useful intellectually valid concept

what we are really fighting is corporatism, and corporatism alone, corrupting our democracy. the oligarchy in beijing, which will eventually come to own all multinational corporations as their economic power becomes the greatest in the world, will wield their influence through corporations to subvert our democracy

that's the danger

fascism, communism: these are dead terms from the previous century. i will not use those terms because i wish to be taken seriously, and no one serious thinks of the idea of fascism or communism as valid ideologies anymore. one died in 1945, one died in 1990. the year is 2011. update your terminology please. i'm interested in intellectually useful terms, not scary boogeyman words from the dustbin of history

Re:capitalists take note (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734368)

the chinese will just buy our democracy outright

That couldn't happen, it's bribery by a foreign power! It would be just like President Ford getting a large donation for the Republican Party in person in Jakarta on the day Indonesia invaded East Timor, and the USA reversing their policy on East Timor on that day, even calling them (the same party that runs East Timor today) Communists! Oh wait. When the papers were released in 2005 we found out that was EXACTLY what happened.
Time to start learning Mandarin.

Re:capitalists take note (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734390)

wow, i didn't know that

yeah the status quo is pretty depressing. but i don't accept it, and a lot other people don't either. that still means something. maybe for not much longer, as fox news shows a lot of people can have their opinions assembled for them by corporate cash

USA didnt succeed (1)

woolio (927141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734416)

excellent points

people can look at Russia and easily see kt as a failure of Communism. Why do people assume that the USA is a good example of a successful capitalistic government?

(perhaps if success is defined more broadly than GDP the point becomes more clear)

[is a student that graduates with a C average a success?]

Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733792)

China bought a number, with an agreement for Airbus to then build a number in China and not long after that the Chinese companies will have what they need from their relationship with Airbus and will then instead just build their own planes without Airbus making a cent.

Its unclear why Airbus made this deal with China. Could it be just shortsightedness?

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733862)

I worked for a high tech company where the Chinese just seized the imported equipment outright and stopped payments. No doubt everything was duplicated and what software wasn't already transferred was reverse engineered. Posting anon...

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34733896)

You answered the question yourself. The immediate sale of the planes goes directly to your bottom line, while the effects of China producing knock-off Airbuses won't be felt for some time still.
However, we should also remember that even if China imports all planes as a whole, they will still be able to reverse engineer them, it will just take longer. Or maybe they'll learn to build their own planes.
So maybe a little short-sightedness wasn't actually as bad a decision as it might seem, since the long haul is a bit of a gamble. Do we write down profit now, or hope that we can continue to outdo China?

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (4, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733980)

You're looking at the whole thing from the wrong angle. The CEO won't care what happens to the company 10 years down the line. By then he'll have taken his golden parachute and cashed in his stock options.

The only thing that matters is the next few bottom lines. So the answer is to get as much money NOW, then run away before the shit hits the fan.

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734150)

Yes, but what more do we expect out of an MBA. It's time to put engineers who care about more then profit back into the CEO offices. BP is a perfect example, a real engineer would not accept the loss of pride that the disaster caused... My grandfather was a CEO engineer of a 500 man company that produced overhead gantry cranes. One of the things he did was to order all of his welding supplies from the smaller of 2 companies in town. Why because if it went bankrupt the larger company would then charge more then smaller company was now charging. In his company the employees on the own showed up an 1/2 hour early to work to discuss and plan the day out along with the usually water cooler chit-chat. Which is just unheard of in most offices and shops. Obviously not everyone was this early but a large percent was. He personal did show until 10 and then usually slept a little more. However, he saw ever mail coming into the company which enable him correct his employs and personally solve ongoing customer complaints.

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733920)

Because if Airbus didn't make the deal, Boeing would, and then Airbus wouldn't have the consolation of "sold a bunch of planes to China before they figured out how to do it themselves".

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (2)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734176)

Yes, that's the problem. Shortsighted goals have fueled our financial woes. China will succeed for the time being because their goal isn't to make a fast buck, It's to strengthen their global position. China will become dominant because of our shortsighted greed. Not to worry though, because even China isn't immune to the corruption of 'values' that comes with success. China will have It's moment in the sun then fall to the same corruption that has destroyed empires for ages past. It all goes in cycles folks and no one rules forever.

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734346)

Hm, I thought only Dutchwomen believed in karma...

Re:Yep, and look at the Airbus A320 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734408)

Sounds about right!

Buy to build? (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#34733872)

"Another strategy is buy-to-build. The first three trains were imported as a whole; the second three were assembled with imported parts; subsequent trains contain more and more Chinese made parts."

In other words, the first were imported. The next were partially imported. The last are clones, without paying patent royalties. Nice.

This is not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734182)

The Chinese have been doing it to the aircraft manuf. for years. They would buy some planes from the Boeing company then turn around buy from the Airbus to make sure no one company has the total market. They also do it with Russians when it comes to fighters development. They would buy one and make many copies and add new features to the copies.

It sounded like excellent business dealing and deserved to be discussed as part of MBA school class. It's captalism at its finest. Why are people bitching about it?

When it comes to business, the thinking has always been how the profit can translate to personal weath and what happens to others is their problem. The Chinese are known to be ruthless when it comes to business and banks, especially the Swiss are starting to feel the pain. I remember talked to one of my in-law who works for a Swiss bank. She hated dealing with the Chinese because the mentality is that if the business failed, they could always go to another city and start over. Who cares about the debts to be repaid to the bank? If there is a dollar worth of business to be made, they would try to get that dollar, but what happens to other people is not their concern.

Re:This is not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734394)

Can you blame them? That's the exact sort of thinking that's gotten America to where it currently is, only instead of having to 'go to another city' they were able to say 'Ooops, can you give us some money or all these poor people will be out of work?' And then 'Oh by the way, these people are out of work. *cha ching*'.

Can a Mandarin speaker comment on translation? (1)

guanxi (216397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734246)

Could someone fluent in Mandarin comment on the translation? I'm especially interested in this translation: "The goal of the project is to boost our economy, not theirs." Is the implication that the Chinese gov't wants their trading partners to suffer, or that their partners' situation just isn't important?

China's economy benefits when their trading partners economies benefit. If it's the former (or even the latter, to a degree), that suggests they have other priorities in mind.

Re:Can a Mandarin speaker comment on translation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734418)

My brother works as a Chinese translator (and his wife is from mainland China) so I've sent him the link and asked for a translation. I'll get back to you :)

Finally ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734296)

.... we find out what the

4) ?????

means.

Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish (3, Insightful)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734342)

Not that I'm begrudging anyone success or prosperity, but it seems that the way the Chinese are operating in this respect screws everyone over in the long run. The buy-and-clone mentality can put Western manufacturers out of business, and since all the Chinese companies did was reverse-engineer, they don't really build up internal expertise of the level they just quashed. And just like Embrace,Extend,Extinguish, in the long run innovation doesn't happen as fast as it might have.

This is just a part of their wargame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734398)

Who here also thinks that all of this, the entire Chinese economy for the last 3 decades, is just a ploy to start another World War? Sooner rather than later we will all wake up in America realizing that China has invaded the USA not through military means but through peaceful means, and then when we realize that, a massive Civil war will break out, then all hell will break loose when we realize on a collective whole that China is to blame for our lower standards of living, massive poverty, massive homelessness and widespread anarchy. From coast to coast.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?