Discussion in 'China' started by Payeng, Mar 12, 2009.
yes reverse engineering is a nice fancy name. get lost dude.
what cat got your tongue, can't find an arguement. i know many country reverse engineer stuff, not just china. US has specific department for that type of work.
Yes, when debating with a retard you often find cats catching one's tongue. How am I to provide a counter argument when you start glorifying stealing and then say everyone steals so whats wrong. Over n Out, fool. I wonder how long it will be before China claims that Russians stole their jet designs from the Chinese.
Why reinvent the wheel? It's much more logical to catch up first, THEN spend all the human and financial resources for next gen developments. India is basically doing the same thing by buying Russian and European tech while simultaneously funding the domestic military industrial complex. Foreign tech is only useful as a stop-gap measure and a learning opportunity. You can't depend on it forever if you want to be a pioneer of new technologies.
For example, Japan and South Korea's modern cutting-edge technologies were developed from a foundation of American know-how. They had to catch up (with major assistance) before they could become pioneers.
Like they are capable to understand what you are saying, wasting time.
Another moron justifying stealing and thuggery. So the new CCP 50 cent rhetoric is to term IP violations as reverse engineering. You guys are going to the extent of glorifying it. 60 years of commie rule has killed all self esteem I guess.
America's post-independence industrial foundation was built upon stolen British technology. Japan's post-war industrial foundation was built upon handed-down American technology. South Korea's post-war industrial foundation was built upon handed-down Japanese/American technology. Taiwan had a similar story.
I'm not justifying IP theft. I'm only making the point that it is not a uniquely communist pattern. In fact, if you look at the aforementioned list, far more democratic capitalist societies have done this than communist/authoritarian ones.
Unfortunately none of what you stated in the first paragraph is even remotely accurate. I have heard the exact same rhetoric on this very same thread, that other stole too, so we will. Americans did not steal anything from the Brits, the Japs did not get anything handed down from the Americans. I am not commenting on South Korea as there is nothing major they have achieved except being a cheap manufacturing location and thereby adapting technology.
Anyway, even accepting your reasoning, none of those entities stole from each other. Whether it was shared or handed down, it was not stealing. Unlike the Chinese, who have based their technology adaptation on stealing.
There is tech adaptation in India too. We dont steal. If we have to purchase the tech we do, if we have to develop it ourselves, we do. We do not steal. Case in point - the flanker derivatives. China stole, India did not.
The concept of IP, and the legal system to sustain it, didn't exist during the time of my historical examples in the form that it does today. That might be why you believe that my examples are false. People weren't suing left and right, nor making a big public fuss over it. For that reason, it's not mentioned in typical history textbooks. It's more of something only really known to historians that have specialized in these areas.
As for IP theft, it's really just an extension of cut-throat competition. If they won't sell you what you think you need for national security, you'll steal their blueprints, reverse-engineer any equipment you get your hands on, and poach their talent (either fresh or retired). From those advantages you can then develop your own military-industrial complex. Putting ethics ahead of national security is naive at best and negligent at worst.
The same goes for putting ethics ahead of profit margins and shareholders in the corporate world.
Thats not why I believe your examples are false. Your examples are factually incorrect and hence they are false. Most likely CCP propaganda to glorify copying. Lipstick on a pig.
Like I said, others adapt to technology too. Through honest in-house development or through paying for IP.
It's not factually incorrect. It's heavily documented by historians. Here's just one example of many. http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/201.full
I am doing my best to be credible here by strictly citing peer-reviewed academic journals. I can't really be any more convincing than that. I am not trying to be intellectually dishonest in any way here, so I would appreciate it if you avoid jumping the gun on dismissing my claims.
Utter crap, America was built by whites who moved there from Europe. They did not steal tech. They went there with their knowledge and built things. China steals technology. Its chalk and cheese.
gjy2105, remember what I told you? I am so right,
Low Self Esteem, thats your problem. Go on, keep glorifying thieves and smugglers.
I never thought that one day I'd be debating with someone about the morality of stealing.
It's not like I'm citing some PLA historian or fringe academic here. I was trying to have an intellectually honest discussion by citing credible sources. I mean come on. It's Yale University Press, the Organization of American Historians, Oxford Journals, etc. etc.
It's from peer-reviewed academic sources that any PhD candidate would be able to safely cite for his or her dissertation. I'm not arguing that stealing is moral. I'm arguing that China is far from alone in putting national or economic security ahead of ethical integrity.
It's not just the Americans, Japanese, South Koreans, and Taiwanese. Britain committed tons of IP theft back before their heyday as well. There's plenty of peer-reviewed, academic material to prove that. It's not like I'm trying to pull a fast one on you.
I'm just trying to show you that your preconceived notion of China as a uniquely evil thief of intellectual property is unjustified, and that there's plenty of credible historical evidence to prove it. It's anything but unique, and it's far from evil.
You are still new here, in 2 weeks you will be used to their style
I don't really care about what their style is. It's not going to change mine. If I'm going to be the only one in the room that cites credible evidence in order to explain my understanding, so be it.
I will come to the Americans stealing from Brits later. All of the other examples you cited was technology that was handed down (as laughable as the term is), in your own words. That does not qualify as stealing and cannot be compared to Chinese theft of IP. That aside, Japanese tech was way ahead of American tech in some areas and on par with them in others before WW2 and after the post war rebuilding, they regained leadership in a number of fields and have maintained that position. South Korea and Taiwan are nothing but cheap manufacturing outposts for America and their tech contributions have been incremental improvements rather than breakthrough innovation. Either way, they did not steal anything from anyone. American and European industries set base there and technology adaptation was honest and straightforward. Very unlike china again. No stealing.
Finally American adaptation of British technology. First off, the british empire was the benchmark of science and technology for all of 100 years. The first immigrants to America were British, followed by French. They brought with them skills and knowledge of shipbuilding, wood working, metallurgy and excelled. Electricity, Steam Engines, Aircrafts, all these were breakthrough innovations by Americans and not based on stolen tech from Europe. For example if a million Japanese Engineers decided to immigrate to China lol, the skills / knowledge they bring in are not stolen. Thats a daft conclusion.
There were no Americans going to Europe to study and reverse engineer European products. On the other hand there was an influx of skilled scientific manpower that migrated to North America that drove innovation and technology.
On the other hand there are dedicated resources on payroll by the CCP to steal technology, from Cyber Espionage to Military reverse engineering to faking copyrighted products (I can buy a $30 Louis Vutton or a $10 Rolex on the streets of Manhattan). Nothing of this scale of thievery has ever occurred in the history of mankind. In fact if I were to write a book on China, it would be called -
How China pulled off the mankind's biggest heist... and then called in economic growth.
Like I said, IP is treated differently now than it was back then. If an American engineer were to join a Chinese company, bringing along all his know-how of patented American technology, techniques, or products, any product that the Chinese company sells, based on that know-how, would technically violate the IP of his former employer. Yet that's exactly what you're claiming British immigrants in America did. The only difference was that the legal framework didn't exist to enforce it back then, and the concept of IP was not like it is today.
"During the colonial and revolutionary era various provincial and state governments attempted to encourage new manufacturing enterprises by offering monopolies and other incentives to skilled immigrants, while Old World powers, England in particular, futile-ly attempted to stanch the loss of knowledge workers. This policy continued into the early republic, as evidenced by Alexander Hamilton's Report on the Subject of Manufactures (1791), which essentially supported further technology piracy. Ben-Atar identifies several individuals who served, in effect, as American industrial spies in England in the 1780s and 1790s, attempting to convince skilled artisans to emigrate. Additionally, private organizations such as the Pennsylvania Society for the Encouragement of Manufactures and the Useful Arts encouraged similar behavior. Some readers may be aware of this activity through David J. Jeremy's work on technology transmission, but Ben-Atar provides an impressive amount of additional detail.
Ben-Atar also outlines the changing American attitudes toward intellectual property. Initially there was some sympathy for an Enlightenment-influenced predilection for a more open exchange of information as embodied by various scientific associations and in the person of Benjamin Franklin. But with the advent of independence, the new nation turned toward a more â€œparticularist, protectionist, and nationalistâ€ approach to intellectual property exemplified by Alexander Hamilton and his assistant, Tench Coxe (p. 82).
Patent law is at the heart of this analysis. Ben-Atar identifies two competing approaches: Patents for inventors and patents for introducers. Extending patents to introducers of new technology implicitly condoned technology smuggling by offering benefits to the â€œpirates.â€ While most European nations offered patents to introducers, the first United States Patent Act of 1790 â€œrestricted patents exclusively to original inventors and established the principle that prior use anywhere in the world was grounds for invalidating a patentâ€ (p. 168). Despite this formal repudiation of piracy, Ben-Atar convincingly argues that the United States informally supported technology piracy through the mid-nineteenth century. It was only when American industrial technology had become widely admired and the United States was becoming a technology exporter that the government began seriously to repudiate piracy.
This cycle was not unique. As Ben-Atar notes, the English followed a similar path. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, they were intrepid technology pirates, but as they gained manufacturing preeminence during the later eighteenth century they jealously guarded their technological secrets. Furthermore, as Ben-Atar also notes, the â€œgap between what is original and what is merely derivative is often rather narrowâ€ (p. 3). These observations beg the question of whether the United States was uniquely hypocritical or whether the hypocritical actions and policies described in this book are deeply ingrained in modern capitalism and the very notion of intellectual property.
One might quibble with portions of Ben Atar's argument: He probably overemphasizes the importance of industrial technology in the revolutionary crisis, and he occasionally conflates efforts to promote manufacturing generally with efforts specifically aimed at pirating industrial technology. Nevertheless, all quibbling aside, this is a well-written, stimulating volume that offers a significant contribution to our understanding of early American economic, technological, and legal history."
How many foreigners migrate to China with their knowledge?
Separate names with a comma.