This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel the trade conflict between the US and China is overdue. The world’s two biggest economies operating on such a different standards of IP was bound to lead to conflict eventually.
Say US companies are having PCBs manufactured in China because that's currently the cheapest option. You cut off that option and US companies are forced use more expensive domestic options. The effects of that can ripple through US companies that directly or indirectly depend on PCBs, and the jobs lost throughout the economy could be greater than the jobs gained from the new automated factories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
In addition, much of the gain will accrue to a smaller number of business owners, while the losses will be spread across the wider public.
Inevitably, those in control will manipulate the situation to their own advantage.
OTOH, maybe it's better to have a small conflict early rather than a large one later.
Having said that, with the amount of Chinese wealth overseas I think there is a vested interest in keeping the status quo
All Chinese information technology companies should be banned from operating within the United States. Tick toc, weibo, baidu, etc. Also ban trading with their hardware companies.
Either a deal will be made or the existing relationship between the United States and China is finished.
This is impossible, even if someone wanted to do this (which is like saying you want to commit suicide) they couldn't.
You mean US standards for intellectual property... which are really Disney standards for intellectual property.
I'm not a US citizen and think that "US standards for intellectual property" are absolutely disgusting. A US company with no connection whatsoever to my country or its indigenous people has trademarked our word for hello/greetings/life/health.
Life plus 70yrs for copyright? WTF?
How about this for "sane standards of intellectual property": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19997848
What's the word? Curious.
[1] https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/366621/bula...
Sounds like a repeat offender to me.
> The trademark does not mean that the company owns the phrase, or that it can ban anyone from using it. Disney filed the trademark upon the release of the original movie for clothing or footwear it sells in the United States, as a way to protect itself against other companies that might try to exploit the Disney brand.
These "trademark experts" have contradicted themselves there. The trademark prevents an African man from the race and culture that created the phrase, from selling clothing and footwear bearing that phrase. And I SMH at the claim that Hakuna Matata is a "Disney brand".
Maybe US and China should adopt Russian standards of IP?
Look at ugg boots, considered generic in Australia and New Zealand, but aggressively trademarked by Dekkers elsewhere in the world, including the USA. Producers from Australia can't use the name when exporting.
Sort of like this exact case...
Maybe should be named uggstralian boots from now on.
Because "ugg boots" is now a trademark, therefore unavailable for everybody else, whereas "hamburger" is not.
Can you provide a better name?
Thank fuck he does, quite frankly. We all dodged a bullet there.
There could've been a targeted dispute over IP. But instead what has happened is that a range of tariffs are involved which has resulted in Trump just giving $16 billion to farmers. Some of whom are now planting crops with no intention to sell but purely to get money from the US government.
But yeah, your point is still a good one.
I'm sadly going to have to pick something else next time around.
So American farmers are losing export sales due to Chinese tariffs, the sting of which Trump is trying to reduce by paying the farmers. Those payments probably aren't funded by tariff revenue collected by the US. So they'll probably be paid for through borrowing. Which may mean borrowing from China.
> It is overdue but it's being prosecuted under a flawed understanding of almost all aspects of the situation and inane and unfocused policy.
What is the understanding, who understands it, and why is their understanding flawed? What is the policy? Why is the policy inane and unfocused? What is the correct understanding and what would be the substantive and focused policy?
> You tackle China first while building an economic coalition of interests with shared goals.
Which aspect of China should be tackled--just IP or something else? Who should be part of the coalition? Or do you mean with other nations? Which goals are shared? Why are those the goals? How are those goals different from the goals held by those who have a flawed understanding, or do they share the same goals?
> A sane and competent person would focus on one task at a time and not undercut the strategic interests required to achieve that task, achieving perhaps effectively nothing.
Who is insane and incompetent person to which you seek to draw a contrast? What is it about their position that leads to the evaluation they are mentally deranged or incompetent? What are the multiple tasks they are focused on? Which one particular task should they focus on? Why is it necessary to focus on one task? Are they the correct tasks? What are the strategic interests? Who holds those strategic interests? Are they they the correct strategic interests? Why are they undercutting those strategic interests? How do those strategy-level issues affect the implementation-level tasks? What would be achieved if their tasks and strategies were aligned?
Answering all of your posed questions would take quite a bit of typing and is probably better suited to a blog post, of which I'm sure there are many you could Google.
I'm not sure why you bothered to respond?