• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China to punish IP infringers after US trade truce

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.

Source
 

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
See this is one of the things I care least about...

Letting us sell and do business in China without all the ridiculous limits and hurtles, and liability..... is the biggest issue.

I think trying to enforce multi-national copyright laws is a fairytale of a goal.... and a lot of it I don't agree with.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
China to punish IP infringers after US trade truce

On that matter, I'm Missouran.

5bd229ee56937.image.jpg
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.

Source

Red:
As anyone who's worked multimillion dollar deals with the Chinese, what's seeming and what's so need not at all be the same things.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,743
Reaction score
7,761
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.

Source

So let me get this straight. CHINA is going to punish the people they sponsor to steal IP! Ah-huh. Like I have said before, nothing gets done about IP theft either unilaterally or bilaterally. Its takes a coalition and Trump is not even trying to build a coalition. You can't crap on your potential coalition partners and get anything done.

This would fall into the category of window dressing.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
22,050
Reaction score
9,757
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So let me get this straight. CHINA is going to punish the people they sponsor to steal IP! Ah-huh. Like I have said before, nothing gets done about IP theft either unilaterally or bilaterally. Its takes a coalition and Trump is not even trying to build a coalition. You can't crap on your potential coalition partners and get anything done.

This would fall into the category of window dressing.

China is now producing a lot of patents, and trademarked goods. Some of its companies are now competitive on the world stage, and will need to be able to earn profits on their R&D expenses. So yes, for the future growth and advancement of the Chinese economy, they will start to enforce patent and IP laws. Now do not expect a high level of enforcement in certain area's like on software like operating systems. At least until China has a reasonable domestic alternative
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Red:
As anyone who's worked multimillion dollar deals with the Chinese, what's seeming and what's so need not at all be the same things.

I'm sure you worked multimillion dollar deals with the Chinese.
 

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
13,278
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.

Source

But isn't Lehman bros about to collapse? Are you sure about what year we're in? :lamo
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,743
Reaction score
7,761
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
China is now producing a lot of patents, and trademarked goods. Some of its companies are now competitive on the world stage, and will need to be able to earn profits on their R&D expenses. So yes, for the future growth and advancement of the Chinese economy, they will start to enforce patent and IP laws. Now do not expect a high level of enforcement in certain area's like on software like operating systems. At least until China has a reasonable domestic alternative

Ah, So they are going to protect their own IP. Well hush my mouth....I am SOOOOOOOO happy about that.

The system and the structure of business in China is inherently protective of their own IP. So if in fact they institutionalize that in law, bully for them. How does that help us protect our IP one iota?
 

JustHanging

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
17,236
Reaction score
7,119
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Red:
As anyone who's worked multimillion dollar deals with the Chinese, what's seeming and what's so need not at all be the same things.

And this is Trump we're talking about.

After every international meeting he makes great claims about all he has accomplished, and then seemingly every time it turns out to be fantasy. North Korea anyone?
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And this is Trump we're talking about.

After every international meeting he makes great claims about all he has accomplished, and then seemingly every time it turns out to be fantasy. North Korea anyone?

That is a conspicuous comportment pattern of accomplishment overstatement that Trump's exhibited, quite frankly, with regard to everything he has undertaken, not just international meeting outcomes.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was upset about Trump freezing tariffs on China until after Christmas, but it seems he got something for it, so I'm less upset now.

Source
As a "free trader" who disapproves of tariffs (other than, as yet, fanciful "optimal tariffs" -- see also: "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence"), I realize the man's imposed the tariffs; thus it's incumbent on me to dispense with normative current arguments and move to positive analysis of the tariffs and the net returns (pecuniary, behavioral, etc.) they're yielding (or aren't).

In the calculus of evaluating the merit of Trump's 90-day suspension of the 15% increase in the tariff rate he's levied against various Chinese-made goods, what be the explicitly-stated goal(s) of those tariffs is the reference point for assessing whether the suspension is fitting. The mere fact of his getting "something," is irrelevant. What matters, vis-a-vis that "something" received, is:
  • Factor A: Pro-rated for the 90-day period:
    • A1 --> The tariffs' explicit pecuniary net returns to US taxpayers, and
    • A2 --> The imputed pecuniary value of the qualitative goals realized from tariffs' implementation.
  • Factor B: For the 90-period itself:
    • B1 --> The net value of whatever the US has, for 90-days, ceded/realized, and
    • B2 --> The value of of what the US, from China, received in return.

y9kvqmgv


It's not all hard to "back of the napkin" conceptualize "B's" value:
  • "Factor B1"
    • B[SUB]1[/SUB] --> Given that the tariffs currently sit at 10% and Trump agreed to deferring for 90 days their increase to 25%, Trump gave up, at the very least, X dollars of tariff revenue receipts.
    • B[SUB]2[/SUB] --> Trump averted the GDP drop associated with a 15% increase, for 90 days, in the applicable tariff rates.
    • B[SUB]1[/SUB] - B[SUB]2[/SUB] = net gain (loss) resulting from the 90-day rate increase deferral --> B[SUB]3[/SUB]
  • What we received from the Chinese:
    • A promise to negotiate the nature and extent of Chinese enforcement (or worse, merely terms of enforcement?) of US (international ?) intellectual property rights/laws.
Using the above model, it's easy to see that:
  • If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is positive, we gave up money in exchange for what amounts to an empty promise.
  • If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is negative, the tariffs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, unless "A1+A2" is positive.

Now, you stated that you are "less upset now." Well, please explain, vis-a-vis the above model, how much less. In other words, by what rationale did you manage to conclude the value of Factor A is positive?
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
22,050
Reaction score
9,757
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ah, So they are going to protect their own IP. Well hush my mouth....I am SOOOOOOOO happy about that.

The system and the structure of business in China is inherently protective of their own IP. So if in fact they institutionalize that in law, bully for them. How does that help us protect our IP one iota?

Because they are going to want their IP protected outside of China. They are among the top patent holders on 5G technology. That is going to be worth billions if fully monetized. That is tech they developed and will need protected outside of China
 

HK.227

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
472
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Because they are going to want their IP protected outside of China. They are among the top patent holders on 5G technology. That is going to be worth billions if fully monetized. That is tech they developed and will need protected outside of China

Same reason copyright is not enforced in so many countries. Why spend money on it and annoy your citizens, when almost no one abroad reads your books, watches your movies, or listens to your music.
It's a race to the bottom of course. By the same logic, other countries should refrain from enforcing Chinese 5G IP as long as the Chinese are ahead of them.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
28,109
Reaction score
14,388
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And this is Trump we're talking about.

After every international meeting he makes great claims about all he has accomplished, and then seemingly every time it turns out to be fantasy. North Korea anyone?

Seen any missiles over Japan lately?
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,743
Reaction score
7,761
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because they are going to want their IP protected outside of China. They are among the top patent holders on 5G technology. That is going to be worth billions if fully monetized. That is tech they developed and will need protected outside of China

Oh thats tech THEY developed. No it isn't. What they have is based on STOLEN IP. You cannot develop 5G technology without having the fundamental building blocks that sit behind it, having stolen them! China stole its way to an inside track on 5G.

This reminds me of the industries that try to pull the plug on an actual effort to exercise some control over them by announcing some unilateral remedy that is actually no remedy at all.

The only way to deal with IP theft of the scope and scale that China practices on trade partners is with a coalition of a sort, a multilateral effort designed to hem in and punish the offender. It can't be done unilaterally by China itself and any contention that it can or will is laughable on its face. It can't be done bilaterally either even if most of the theft is from one party and most of the benefit is going to another.

Trump has already shot himself in the foot on this one. He has no time left now to reinvigorate any sort of multilateral effort since he has spent two years crapping on just the parties he needs to mount an actual effort. The Japanese are likely the only parties that might trust him at this point. I am sure that won't stop him from either embracing this announcement of a unilateral effort by China as if it means something or continuing to pursue some bilateral solution that also will not be a solution.

Oh I expect China will at some point in the future pick some low level flunky IP thefts, something like bicycle ball bearings to make some big news about so that they claim they are actually doing something. Those charged will be sacrificial lambs to the building of a facade.

The only way China has been kept at bay to this point in worldwide wireless telecom has been through the standards bodies. Now that they are essentially global I am not sure how that will actually work especially once Phase 2, 5G starts to roll out. The two Chinese telecom giants ZTE and Huawei now have much more manufacturing capacity than the firms that truly developed the fundamental technologies behind digital wireless. So we can look forward to western technology based companies losing that market base as well and we can look forward to smartphones and systems with security and system integrity that will be highly suspect.
 
Last edited:

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,743
Reaction score
7,761
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In fact China's right angle into wireless telecom might be one of the greatest threats to western democracy we face. China's own domestic wireless telecom market is gigantic. Hence the scale and scope of their own domestic market is remarkably different anywhere other than possibly India. However China itself is committed to authoritarianism and control of its citizenry and its citizenry simply has shown little in the way of resistance. So little in fact that China is instituting a nationwide Citizen Rating System and its citizenry is simply rolling over for it. We all know what will happen within a National Citizen Rating system.

Are we actually naive enough to think China does not intend using its domestic wireless telecom systems to forward the aims of its National Citizen Rating system? What does that mean for other countries that deploy using hardware and systems developed in China? Clearly both the Integrity of our own personal security and our system integrity will be much diminished in any wireless telecom world envisioned by China. We are all of us such suckers for technology, particularly Smartphone technology.
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
As a "free trader" who disapproves of tariffs (other than, as yet, fanciful "optimal tariffs" -- see also: "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence"), I realize the man's imposed the tariffs; thus it's incumbent on me to dispense with normative current arguments and move to positive analysis of the tariffs and the net returns (pecuniary, behavioral, etc.) they're yielding (or aren't).

In the calculus of evaluating the merit of Trump's 90-day suspension of the 15% increase in the tariff rate he's levied against various Chinese-made goods, what be the explicitly-stated goal(s) of those tariffs is the reference point for assessing whether the suspension is fitting. The mere fact of his getting "something," is irrelevant. What matters, vis-a-vis that "something" received, is:
  • Factor A: Pro-rated for the 90-day period:
    • A1 --> The tariffs' explicit pecuniary net returns to US taxpayers, and
    • A2 --> The imputed pecuniary value of the qualitative goals realized from tariffs' implementation.
  • Factor B: For the 90-period itself:
    • B1 --> The net value of whatever the US has, for 90-days, ceded/realized, and
    • B2 --> The value of of what the US, from China, received in return.

y9kvqmgv


It's not all hard to "back of the napkin" conceptualize "B's" value:
  • "Factor B1"
    • B[SUB]1[/SUB] --> Given that the tariffs currently sit at 10% and Trump agreed to deferring for 90 days their increase to 25%, Trump gave up, at the very least, X dollars of tariff revenue receipts.
    • B[SUB]2[/SUB] --> Trump averted the GDP drop associated with a 15% increase, for 90 days, in the applicable tariff rates.
    • B[SUB]1[/SUB] - B[SUB]2[/SUB] = net gain (loss) resulting from the 90-day rate increase deferral --> B[SUB]3[/SUB]
  • What we received from the Chinese:
    • A promise to negotiate the nature and extent of Chinese enforcement (or worse, merely terms of enforcement?) of US (international ?) intellectual property rights/laws.
Using the above model, it's easy to see that:
  • If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is positive, we gave up money in exchange for what amounts to an empty promise.
  • If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is negative, the tariffs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, unless "A1+A2" is positive.

Now, you stated that you are "less upset now." Well, please explain, vis-a-vis the above model, how much less. In other words, by what rationale did you manage to conclude the value of Factor A is positive?

1) How do you know that's all we got? For instance, China agreed to crack down on Fentanyl.

2) What if it's a fulfilled promise?
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As a "free trader" who disapproves of tariffs (other than, as yet, fanciful "optimal tariffs" -- see also: "Optimal Tariffs and Market Power: The Evidence"), I realize the man's imposed the tariffs; thus it's incumbent on me to dispense with normative current arguments and move to positive analysis of the tariffs and the net returns (pecuniary, behavioral, etc.) they're yield (or don't).

In ... evaluating the merit of Trump's 90-day suspension of the 15% [bump] in the tariff [he] levied against various Chinese-made goods, what be the explicitly-stated goal(s) of those tariffs is the reference point for assessing whether the suspension is fitting. The mere fact of his getting "something," is irrelevant. What matters, vis-a-vis that "something" received, is:
  • Factor A: Pro-rated for the 90-day period:
    • A1 --> The tariffs' explicit pecuniary net returns to US taxpayers, and
    • A2 --> The imputed pecuniary value of the qualitative goals realized from tariffs' implementation.
  • Factor B: For the 90-period itself:
    • B1 --> The net value of whatever the US has, for 90-days, ceded/realized, and
    • B2 --> The value of of what the US, from China, received in return.

y9kvqmgv


It's not all hard to "back of the napkin" conceptualize "B's" value:
  • "Factor B1"
    • B[SUB]1[/SUB] --> Given that the tariffs currently sit at 10% and Trump agreed to deferring for 90 days their increase to 25%, Trump gave up, at the very least, X dollars of tariff revenue receipts.
    • B[SUB]2[/SUB] --> Trump averted the GDP drop associated with a 15% increase, for 90 days, in the applicable tariff rates.
    • B[SUB]1[/SUB] - B[SUB]2[/SUB] = net gain (loss) resulting from the 90-day rate increase deferral --> B[SUB]3[/SUB]
  • What we received from the Chinese:
    • A promise to negotiate the nature and extent of Chinese enforcement (or worse, merely terms of enforcement?) of US (international ?) intellectual property rights/laws.
Using the above model, it's easy to see that:
  • If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is positive, we gave up money in exchange for what amounts to an empty promise.
  • If B[SUB]3[/SUB] is negative, the tariffs shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, unless "A1+A2" is positive.

Now, you stated that you are "less upset now." Well, please explain, vis-a-vis the above model, how much less. In other words, by what rationale did you ... conclude the value of Factor A is positive?

1) How do you know that's all we got? For instance, China agreed to crack down on Fentanyl.

2) What if it's a fulfilled promise?
Red:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam


Tan:
You'd add that to the "blue" items. I wouldn't for several reasons:
So what the G20 yielded is the US getting promises, and China getting a 90-day deferral of a forced price increase on the goods it exports to the US. To me, that looks like more "nothing" than "something." You, clearly are of a different mind.

Pink:
"What if?" What if frogs had wings?

I discussed what specifically we have conceded, and you response is to ask about "unhatched eggs," as it were. Puh-lease.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,743
Reaction score
7,761
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In fact China's right angle into wireless telecom might be one of the greatest threats to western democracy we face. China's own domestic wireless telecom market is gigantic. Hence the scale and scope of their own domestic market is remarkably different anywhere other than possibly India. However China itself is committed to authoritarianism and control of its citizenry and its citizenry simply has shown little in the way of resistance. So little in fact that China is instituting a nationwide Citizen Rating System and its citizenry is simply rolling over for it. We all know what will happen within a National Citizen Rating system.

Are we actually naive enough to think China does not intend using its domestic wireless telecom systems to forward the aims of its National Citizen Rating system? What does that mean for other countries that deploy using hardware and systems developed in China? Clearly both the Integrity of our own personal security and our system integrity will be much diminished in any wireless telecom world envisioned by China. We are all of us such suckers for technology, particularly Smartphone technology.

BINGO.....Huawei CFO arrested in Canada at the request of US agencies regarding a whole host of concerns including IP, cyber-security, cyber-spying and system backdoors as Huawei endeavors to make inroads in the US Phase 1, 5G market. Why am I not surprised!

Now watch Bozo the President simply knuckle under and fold like a cheap suit as soon as he can find some personal wealth generation angle for himself.
 
Top Bottom