I think the suggestion is more around people like Lowell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Cabot_Lowell

> Despite political independence, the United States remained dependent on imports for manufactured goods. The conflicts between the European Powers and the Embargo of 1807 severely disrupted trade between the United States, Great Britain, France and Asia. Lowell reached the conclusion that to be truly independent, the United States needed to manufacture goods at home. In June 1810, he went on a two-year visit with his family to Britain. ... Lowell developed an interest in the textile industries of Lancashire and Scotland, especially the spinning and weaving machines, which were operated by water power or steam power. He was not able to buy drawings or a model of a power loom. He secretly studied the machines. In Edinburgh he met fellow American Nathan Appleton who would later become a partner in the Lowell mills. As the War of 1812 began, Lowell and his family left Europe and on their way home, the boat and all their personal belongings were searched at the Halifax port to ensure that no contraband was being smuggled out of Great Britain. Lowell had memorized all the workings of British power looms without writing anything down.

Or Samuel Slater - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Slater

> Samuel Slater (June 9, 1768 – April 21, 1835) was an early English-American industrialist known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution", a phrase coined by Andrew Jackson, and the "Father of the American Factory System". In the United Kingdom, he was called "Slater the Traitor" and "Sam the Slate" because he brought British textile technology to the United States, modifying it for American use. He memorized the textile factory machinery designs as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the U.S. at the age of 21.

---

Industrial espionage and acts that would be considered patent infringement in today's timeframe were key parts of the early independence for the United States.

Remember when the Francis Cabot Lowell copied the Power Loom through industrial espionage?

> Patents (what protects inventions) have nothing to do with copyright.

Besides sibling comment, see "The Spies Who Launched America’s Industrial Revolution":

> Long before the United States began accusing other countries of stealing ideas, the U.S. government encouraged intellectual piracy to catch up with England’s technological advances. According to historian Doron Ben-Atar, in his book,[1] Trade Secrets, “the United States emerged as the world's industrial leader by illicitly appropriating mechanical and scientific innovations from Europe.”

* https://www.history.com/articles/industrial-revolution-spies...

> ensuring that people who have brilliant ideas get appropriately rewarded

This doesn't happen anymore, and the sooner the contributors to our industry learn this, the sooner we can start fixing it.

What would china consider to be the appropriate length of compensation though?

the claim is that chinese people in china must follow US law. presumably US people in US should also follow chinese law.

It's not stolen, you don't loose it if someone copy it. It's infringed. And personnally, as long as i am credited in the author file? I'm good.

If you can't use the correct terminology, then your entire statement is worthless.

I very much agree. Technology moves far too fast in this century for companies, who will only need to invest less as AI improves, to have a monopoly over things that would inevitably (or were already) also being developed. It made sense when you invested 20 years into the research for a thing, back when that was necessary due to the slower pace. People had to travel places more often, spent more time doing so, communications took longer, and generally everything took significantly more time. Those policies served companies well in the last century. These days a grad student tested something on a weekend, a professor viewed the results in the morning and a reaction is already in progress. It simply isn’t reasonable anymore; they should have a right to recoup a reasonable costs, of course, paying off their investment. When that investment becomes a company worth more than at least 50% of the others, maybe they should need to compete more, not less? Make them innovate to maintain customers rather than simply sit on their patents. Just an opinion, but I believe that internal competition will only help us innovate.

Laughing heard inside the POTUS office.

Same experience... I was told I was not Han and not family so f-you

How is that different from the US?