Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Which historically is what the USA did regarding European ipr in the nineteenth century.

And Europe did to China in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Wedgewood porcelain and Sevres...

What you said regarding US stealing IP from Europe is true.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take defensive measure. Do defend our IP because that's our self-interest. Don't do it with the moral pretense.

> But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take defensive measure.

It just means that defensive measures will not be successful.

True. I don't for a minute mean there are no consequences here. I'm

You are what

...bad at saving edits?

I'm fully aware the actions require a response

Given the markets in the 17 and 18th centuries weren't as vibrant and open as today, and the amount of technology stolen by the Chinese today, compared to the amount "stolen" by Europeans back then, this comparison is plain disingenuous.

Edit: expanding: the technology wasn't stolen in the same sense as today, because the Chinese couldn't not wanted to export and sell the technology back to the West. But US/Europe today are getting their IP stolen, and immediately sold to them. That's the asymmetry.

Oh certainly, the scale is significantly different. I think that the rei-ification of IPR just isn't understood the same way culturally, the "crime" is not taken in the same sense the effect on Chinese economy and polity is taken. Much the same as the Russians for much of the 20th century: must catch up is like a joker card mentality. Except of course as long as you steal IPR, you can't catch up in real sense.

That's right. The long-term trend will be in the direction of China playing by club rules. When China is a fully developed nation, its brands are valuable overseas and its own technology is superior in many markets. Then it'll be in China's interest to enforce global trading rules.

Right now it's in transition.

Things move faster(fortunately) but the effect is similar. Any small invention in the past had huge effects on history. Europens won over the indigenious people because of the technology. It was not very advanced but good enough to change history. If the chinesse were not so...communist I wouldn't really say it's a bad thing in the big picture.

The biggest irony here is that Samsung used to be known for stealing Western and Japanese technology.

Do you see a difference between one person learning a process inside and out, and reproducing it elsewhere, versus the work product of thousands of engineers being stolen, far more information than a single human could ever possibly know? The former is like watching a chef work and seeing how he cooks a beef Wellington and doing it yourself, whereas the latter is like just taking his whole recipe set.

I think you're misunderstanding the pre-industrial-revolution world's attitude to trade secrets. "Learning a process inside and out, and reproducing it elsewhere" was not allowed, at least for high-value processes.

An example from within Europe: http://www.muranoglass.com/en/news-en/ten-facts-you-did-not-...

And I also suspect you're not understanding the relative value of those processes (glass, tea, porcelain, etc) to the economy of those areas vs the current relative value of the "product of thousands of engineers".

Don't forget silk. For 3,000 years it was a complete mystery to China's trading partners. Even that it came from lavae was not known by most. Korea was the first to appropriate Chinese sericulture technology.

Recipes aren't protected by IP laws, which is a good thing, because if they were, food would be worse.

There's a lesson there.

Is it "don't read too closely into analogies"?

No. It's "IP protection is mostly a racket at this point, and instead of promoting research & development, it often slows it down".

How do you know?

I don't, really.

Sure, cutting-edge intellectual property these days is more complicated and unlikely to be completely and fully understood by a single person. That's a function of the progress of technology.

I don't see how one person, or one country, stealing IP via memorization (the technology of the 1800s) is meaningfully different from someone stealing IP on a USB stick (the technology of today).

It's not about the method of theft, it's about the cost of the thing being stolen.

When people decide to send ideas to be turned into things in China, what's being removed is labour value: it's too expensive to make something in the USA, compared to China.

The cost of labour and compliance with health and safety is the main factor.

Is it surprising the Chinese industrialist looks at the rate of profit for these goods sold in the USA and tries to copy them, and secure some of that gap between cost (of production) and price?

So now, thinking like a US consumer, which is better? The iPhone sold by Steve jobs, or the cheaper phone with stolen IPR? What if the stolen IPR is totally ephemeral and only about the GUI?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com