Well if you are talking about Samuel Slater, he emigrated from Britain and used his technology here. Britain had the death penalty for skilled people who emigrated. Is that what you want? Omg
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innov...trial-revolution-was-built-piracy-fraud.shtml China's just using the same old historical playbook. People who stand by IP protection a) don't understand how innovation works and b) can't be bothered to check how laughable American IP regimes have become.
Of course, let's not for a second pretend this doesn't continue into the present: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32542140 In conclusion: China may never adopt an IP regime until they create an overwhelming amount of the world's IP (which in the software field I find unlikely due to a number of factors, but I'm absolutely inclined to think hardware/manufacturing/IoT will be Chinese-dominated if they play their cards right). It'll still be a while until their IP regime is utterly corrupted by crony capitalism-like relationships. Maybe it'll take shorter than what has happened in America because the whole CCP is festering with corruption, but eh. Meanwhile, even when they embrace strong IP to protect themselves, they'll still steal from others. They'll have learned from the best in this regards.
IP law is tough. You want to protect inventors so they get rewarded for what they do, but you don't want to stifle the spread and growth of technology. Or you can be like glynch and say whatever the US does is evil and whatever China, Russia and Venezuela do is great.
No, IP law is quite easy from a "this is why we're f**king doing it" perspective: you build an absurd regime when you have mountains of IP even though you stole to get going at the beginning and you're still going to steal afterwards, but just be more subtle about it. The history of IP: Thomas Edison pirated “A Trip to the Moon” across America, got *****tons more richer, helped bankrupt the maker. Hollywood evolves because it's a collection of people escaping from Thomas Edison and his patents. now look at who is suing who for IP violations. LOL. The failures of free markets aren't in the results: they're in the utter imbalance and poor choice of metrics. Nobody can claim with a straight face that free market economies are bad at their stated goal: increase GDP. But there is a LOT of consequences for that: the depletion of natural resources that took millions of years to accumulate, human-caused mass extinctions in biodiversity, and a lifestyle of continual want. At a certain point, the consequences have already begun outweighing the benefits. Surprisingly, it's China that is moving faster in this regards. I do not think they will embrace the current version of free markets for much longer given how scroched-earth the country has become. And yes, you can predict that China will beef up IP law whenever it gets enough IP. Of course it'll be to the detriment of whatever innovation comes out of the copying, but you're right, there's a balance there: encouraging the real innovations that come out of free and open scientific exchange (largely responsible for the prosperity free markets claim) vs incenting dead inventors and their family estates (which the American IP regime is currently devolving into). I think China's got a piss-poor regime, but it'll be piss-poorer if they embrace IP law in its current American-dominated form. 'good artists copy; great artists steal'
China has no obligation to enforce any IP law if it doesn't want to, which would be a bad idea not because it is morally wrong but for economic reasons. The US did not enforce foreign IP rights until late 19th century. This is a north-south argument. Now, this is why China will eventually build a IP regime up to the world standard: access to western markets, which will force big Chinese companies to abide by global IP standards, which will in turn influence IP standards within China. Like I said, China wants to make money and shares many value judgement with the US. China is an opportunity.
My view military is necessary. China is doing the same, not necessarily for dominance in the world either, but due in part to securing its access to resources and leverages in bi or mul lateral talks. If the US removes its military presence significantly in Asia-Pacific, trade talks with China or even allies like Korea or Japan would be much different.
If you actually research it you will see that they did much better until recently or at least in the period before the 2008 financial meltdown than the period before when right wing dictators imposed "free" markets. Hey I know it is not in the right wing or even biz press you believe in so dearly. Of course with resource prices crashing Venezuela and a couple of others are doing poorly. Again I won't do your research for you at this point.
Hey you like to pick on minutiae at times, to try to cover up for your lack of info to support your world view which you consider just common sense that needs no support due to its prevalence in common media. So try to be accurate and not exaggerate-- "whatever the US does is evil and whatever China, Russia and Venezuela do is great."
Glynch you are trying too hard. There are other counties you could say that are outperforming the US. China is not one of them.
You're all over the place. I'm saying constructing a fair IP regime that balances all interests and makes it fair is tough. As far as natural resources, what does that have to do with IP? People have been saying that forever. And its thanks to free markets that renewables are seeing huge growth.
Ok so now you're blaming the commodities crash on your non-liberal economies doing poorly? That's a really bad excuse because the liberal countries diversified away from resources.
haha using the NYT to justify warmed over unexamined Reaganism. You bring up an interesting point. If someone's reading is restricted to say the right wing press, the WSJ with the occasional "left wing" NYT lol for balance it is how one gets fooled on issues like the Iraq War, as in recent years the NYT is largely a scribe for whatever current administration.
You are certainly correct and while China is making incredible advances from a country that after WW II had a life expectancy of 35 years with 80% illiteracy we should compare ourselves to many of the top 30 western countries who do better in most social indicators. It certainly remains to be seen where China ends up, but they seem to be making more right moves in doing business world wide and making friends while we do war and make enemies which was my initial thrust of the thread.
