China - World's greatest Copycat

[trackwhack]

It's not a justification. It's the very definition of economic espionage.

FBI — Economic Espionage

sorry but you are diluting corporate theft with strategic intelligence. though as a species both are disgusting, they are not the same. all theft is wrong. how is selling a duplicate pair of nike shoes the same as a spy satellite checking the enemy's missile installations? please dont start another wild goose chase. get back on topic if you are trying to make a point. the thread and discussion is about Chinese stealing technology and brand value, copying and duplicating products handed or sold to them based on good faith, violating IP and Copyrights. This is not the same as military intelligence. There is a paki forum where your views will attract high commendation, not here.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

You're using a selectively narrow definition of espionage, one that the FBI, GAO, and the U.S. Congress clearly disagrees with. You seem to have this habit of defining history and terminology in your own terms.

Economic espionage
" is the unauthorized acquisition of U.S. proprietary or other information by a foreign government to advance the economic position of that country against U.S. industry.[1] "
" occurs when an actor, knowing or intending that his or her actions will benefit any foreign government, instrumentality or agent, knowingly: (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, carries away, conceals, or obtains by deception or fraud a trade secret; (2) copies, duplicates, reproduces, destroys, uploads, downloads, or transmits that trade secret without authorization; or (3) receives a trade secret knowing that the trade secret had been stolen, appropriated, obtained or converted without authorization.[2] "
The definition of "economic espionage" excludes the collection of public domain and legally available information that constitutes a significant majority of economic collection. Aggressive intelligence collection that is entirely in the public domain and is legal may harm US industry, but it is not espionage. It, however, may help foreign intelligence services identify and fill information gaps that could be a precursor to economic espionage.

References
1. General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office), Communications Privacy: Federal Policy and Actions (GAO/OSI-94-2) (Nov. 4, 1993) (http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat5/150236.pdf).
2. 18 U.S.C. §1831 (Section 101 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ294/pdf/PLAW-104publ294.pdf).

 

[trackwhack]

No I am not, you are the one that first mixed military intelligence gathering with corporate theft. Yes and without even reading the above definitions, they are wrong and China is the biggest violator of the above.

p.s. I am surprised that you have yet to bring up the 'we invented gunpowder' logic, though i have a nasty feeling thats where you intend to drag this discussion into and make your concluding arguments.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

No I am not, you are the one that first mixed military intelligence gathering with corporate theft. Yes and without even reading the above definitions, they are wrong and China is the biggest violator of the above.

Wow. Big man here thinks that his personal definitions supersede that of the FBI, GAO, and U.S. Congress.

Edit: I haven't used the 'we invented gunpowder' logic because it's illogical, and I disagree with its validity. My logic is that economic espionage is a valid weapon for undermining a rival and benefiting your own "side".

 

[trackwhack]

make a point dude or stop trying. your defence is wearing thin.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

I stand by the evidence I've already cited from the Yale University Press, Oxford University Journals, the Organization of American Historians, the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the U.S. Congress.

As your defense, you have used...nothing but your own opinion. Your future in law and/or academia is not looking too bright.

 

[trackwhack]

I got a spanking from my dad when i was 5 years old for oulling out change from my uncle's pocket while I was sitting on his lap. I understood them what stealing was. i dont need an fbi manual to explain what theft is to me. maybe its the chinese culture to feel ok about stealing. maybe thats why you are comfortable with it and comfortable defending it. thats my point. nothing you say will convince any sane person otherwise. I agree ... your donkey has five legs. so be it.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

I got a spanking from my dad when i was 5 years old for oulling out change from my uncle's pocket while I was sitting on his lap. I understood them what stealing was. i dont need an fbi manual to explain what theft is to me. maybe its the chinese culture to feel ok about stealing. maybe thats why you are comfortable with it and comfortable defending it. thats my point. nothing you say will convince any sane person otherwise. I agree ... your donkey has five legs. so be it.

Stealing spare change is petty theft. Successfully stealing billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions, or trillions of dollars worth of IP is an overwhelming success.

 

[trackwhack]

Stealing spare change is petty theft. Successfully stealing billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions, or trillions of dollars worth of IP is an overwhelming success.

I rest my case regarding the culture comment. I dont make for a bad shrink after all. unfortunately for you, there is no cure to such inbred ideals.

 

[trackwhack]

by the way, I remember a time when the chinese vehemently denied stealing and theft. today though many of them reconcile to the fact that they've been caught so the defense has shifted to justifying it. either that or some 50 centers are gonna be pissed with that admission of guilt.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

You're free to disagree with my principles, just as I am free to disagree with yours, but that doesn't change the fact that your narrative of history regarding IP theft is factually incorrect. The only difference is that my narrative is shared by, and supported by rigorously peer-reviewed academic evidence from the mainstream of academia's elite. And your narrative is supported by, your own opinion.

I rest my case regarding the culture comment. I dont make for a bad shrink after all. unfortunately for you, there is no cure to such inbred ideals.

 

[trackwhack]

You're free to disagree with my principles, just as I am free to disagree with yours, but that doesn't change the fact that your narrative of history regarding IP theft is factually incorrect. The only difference is that my narrative is shared by, and supported by rigorously peer-reviewed academic evidence from the mainstream of academia's elite. And your narrative is supported by, your own opinion.

factually correct is again based on your version/interpretation of history, which like you pointed out is your opinion only. I'm not going to go through the trouble of posting a peer reviewed article rubbishing the claims of the articles you posted, thats what google's for. so in effect your point is moot. each is an opinion. the only thing we unearthed was that china steals, whether that is ok or not. its not, and thats all there is to it.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

In this circumstance, my definition of factually correct history is based on the heavy body of literature that has been thoroughly peer-reviewed by elite Western academics, researchers, and historians.

If you can't defend your argument with credible evidence, then your argument lacks credibility. If you don't have the desire to defend your argument with credible evidence, then your argument is not worth making. Peer-reviewed academic journals are as credible as you can possibly get. It's the foundation of scientific, medical, and academic research in the academic, intellectual, and professional communities.

Your wordplay doesn't count as evidence in support of your argument. That's partly because my understanding of history isn't merely a derivative of the peer-reviewed work that I cited. Rather, my understanding of history is based entirely on the thorough body of work that is available, of which his is just a small shred.

factually correct is again based on your version/interpretation of history, which like you pointed out is your opinion only. I'm not going to go through the trouble of posting a peer reviewed article rubbishing the claims of the articles you posted, thats what google's for. so in effect your point is moot. each is an opinion. the only thing we unearthed was that china steals, whether that is ok or not. its not, and thats all there is to it.

 

[ice berg]

In this circumstance, my definition of factually correct history is based on the heavy body of literature that has been thoroughly peer-reviewed by elite Western academics, researchers, and historians.

If you can't defend your argument with credible evidence, then your argument lacks credibility. If you don't have the desire to defend your argument with credible evidence, then your argument is not worth making. Peer-reviewed academic journals are as credible as you can possibly get. It's the foundation of scientific, medical, and academic research in the academic, intellectual, and professional communities.

Your wordplay doesn't count as evidence in support of your argument. That's partly because my understanding of history isn't merely a derivative of the peer-reviewed work that I cited. Rather, my understanding of history is based entirely on the thorough body of work that is available, of which his is just a small shred.

You just powned that kid. Although after a while you will learn that some individuals just aint worth arguing with.
People believe what they want to believe. You cant just reasoning with them.

 

[trackwhack]

like I said, the links you provided are not evidence just people thinking out aloud. you have just chosen to posts links that are convenient to your side of the argument. I refuse to stoop to that level to use google to support mine. using google only shows the inferiority of your debating skills. you are not fooling me with that BS nor are you fooling anyone else. We both agree that China steals. you're position is that stealing is not unethical, mine is that it is. The thread is that china steals, a point vehemently denied by chinese members before. now you accept that it is in fact the case and the debate has moved on to the rights and wrongs of it. throughout your posts you have made incorrect comparisons like foreign immigration into america with returning chinese immigrants to china. you have compared destruction of brand value through duplication to military intelligence. you have done nothing but beat around the bush. when you have a more concrete argument on the morality of theft you can come back and make another meek attempt at redemption.

yes I have a colorful command over the language and I am glad it made for interesting reading for you. I cannot say the same about your drab arguments though. and remember saying the same thing over 20 posts does not add any cred to the point. if the point is wrong it just is.

iceberg, STFU man. no one can win a debate if their stand is that theft is not immoral. you havent even read his posts, just made a snide attack and moved on. thats pathetic.

 

[s002wjh]

German auto firm wins lawsuit over design rip-off

German auto company Neoplan Bus GmbH has successfully sued three Chinese companies for 20 million yuan after they copied its bus design and then sold their vehicles for one third of the German price, a Beijing court said Wednesday.

The Zhongwei Bus & Coach Group, its parent company Zonda Industrial Group and its agent Beijing Zhongtong Xinghua Vehicle Sales Co, Ltd. were ordered to pay 20 million yuan ($2.92 million) in compensation to Neoplan by the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing in a ruling on Monday, the court said.

The Chinese companies were also ordered to stop making and selling the "A9" bus. The court backed Neoplan's accusation that the Chinese companies' design was a copycat of the German company's award-winning Starliner. The Chinese companies also had to pay 1.16 million yuan in legal costs.

Neoplan filed a suit at the court on September 26, 2006, demanding 40 million in compensation from the Chinese companies.

The court has ruled that Zhongwei's A9 bus had too much in common with Starliner.

Neoplan said it obtained the design patent of Starliner in China in September 2004 and began making and selling the buses then. It found the Chinese companies were selling A9 buses in the spring of 2006.

Some A9 buses had been exported to southeast Asian countries and to eastern Europe. The A9 was sold at about a third of the Starliner's price.

 

[Geoffrey R. Stone]

Based on your absolutely overwhelming ignorance of the status of peer-reviewed academic journals as the basis of all published academic (including historical), scientific, and medical research in the developed world, it seems probable that you have a pathetically low level of education. Go finish your schooling and then come back to the table.

For your own benefit: Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

like I said, the links you provided are not evidence just people thinking out aloud. you have just chosen to posts links that are convenient to your side of the argument. I refuse to stoop to that level to use google to support mine. using google only shows the inferiority of your debating skills. you are not fooling me with that BS nor are you fooling anyone else. We both agree that China steals. you're position is that stealing is not unethical, mine is that it is. The thread is that china steals, a point vehemently denied by chinese members before. now you accept that it is in fact the case and the debate has moved on to the rights and wrongs of it. throughout your posts you have made incorrect comparisons like foreign immigration into america with returning chinese immigrants to china. you have compared destruction of brand value through duplication to military intelligence. you have done nothing but beat around the bush. when you have a more concrete argument on the morality of theft you can come back and make another meek attempt at redemption.

yes I have a colorful command over the language and I am glad it made for interesting reading for you. I cannot say the same about your drab arguments though. and remember saying the same thing over 20 posts does not add any cred to the point. if the point is wrong it just is.

iceberg, STFU man. no one can win a debate if their stand is that theft is not immoral. you havent even read his posts, just made a snide attack and moved on. thats pathetic.

 

[Ray]

China has cloned many things and of that there is no doubt.

It has its ethical points that can be debated.

On the flip side, it does show the ingenuity of the Chinese to be capable of doing so.

 

[s002wjh]

China has cloned many things and of that there is no doubt.

It has its ethical points that can be debated.

On the flip side, it does show the ingenuity of the Chinese to be capable of doing so.

i think as late comer to the patent issues, china don't have the knoweldge or experience on filling, enforce patents. it does get better and better now, several foreign company sue in china and won the lawsuit. it probably will get better as time goes on, they still reform the patent law etc etc.

now whenever foreign company invest in china, they first apply patent in china for protection before start investing it.

 

[s002wjh]

some stuff on china patent war
China Central Television
China Insight 20120419 Patent wars CCTV News - CNTV English