I don't buy the bit about three different ypes of innovation, frankly. In my view, innovation is always more like the last ietm listed. You're always building on something that came before. I'll bet even the wheel was invented when some clever guy got tired of moving round logs constantly, and decided to try to keep that round thing attached to the heavy object.
But there are limits to how much one can copy verbatim with impunity, and clearly China has yet to internalize that limit. Reputations, both good and bad, are built for very good reasons, almost always.
Bert, you've got a good point here.
The issue is how one defines the "borrowed/digested/reinvented" model.
When I asked the panel, "what can China do to convince the world it’s serious about IPR protection," here's what
Pekin Univ.’s Chen said: “I am not a lawyer. So I am not sure how much of Chinese law should be changed.” But he quickly added, “I think the penalty for IPR infringement is too low in China. It has to be higher. I predict that IP litigation will increase in China.”
More lawyers filing more lawsuits is not anyone’s ideal scenario, but in China it might be a necessary growing pain, if only to test the fairness of China’s evolving legal system, Prof. Chen explained.
China doesn't yet have the rule of law, let alone the rule of IP law. They have good laws but everyone ignore them. They are too free, they can do whatever they want. The government doesn't want to spend time enforcing the law as long as the law breakers are not against the government.
The West can afford to advocate democracy and freedom because the people obey traffic lights. Traffic-light obeying people are considered to be fools over there.
I think transfer is a euphemism for "theft". China if they want technology, need to put the big bucks where their party mouth is. No one will hand you over their IP. China needs to spend the money and resources necessary to develop their own IP. Otherwise, China will be stuck in their "cheap manufacturer" of the world paradigm. Just like the US has spent the time and money to develop technology that the market wants, China needs to follow suit, otherwise the Chinese strategy has plateaued and isn't going to get the wantabees any further towards owning key patents and know how that other countries will want and use. Communist party edicts don't work outside the chinese sphere of influence.
Very good point, and very good analogy with the traffic lights. I actually came to a similar conclusion, when all the baby formula scandal and lead in children's toys stories were in the news.
With capitalism there has to be an associated measure of responsibility, which comes with penalties for violations of the law. It's not as simple as grab grab grab.
To me, it's almost like saying that to compensate for the reduced government control of everything comes an increase in self control, with penalties when this self control is not exerted.
A contact of mine is an IP lawyer, and her feel is the same as mine: the Chinese divide the world into Chinese and "Everybody else", and a different set of rules apply if you *aren't* Chinese.
If I were an American tech outfit interested in working in China, I'd be at pains to carefully select my Chinese partner *and* to make sure my partner had the appropriate contacts in the Chinese government. My partner would need to see the tech I was supplying and it's relationship with me as critical to its own success, and the government would need to view the relationship as important to China's success.
If those were both true, I might have a hope of success, and some actual protection for my IP. Otherwise, you get the comment made by an American executive re IP in China, who said "Bring suit against a Chinese company in a Chinese court for IP violation, and tell me what you get."
And forging that relationship would not be a quick process, as it would require personal contact between my top people and theirs over a period of time. I recall a story elsewhere about an American working on a deal with a Chinese company, where a prolonged amount of informal social contact, drinking tea, and admiring pictures of each other's kids was needed before getting down to business, because the first question the Chinese CEO had was "Can I work with this guy? Do we get along well enough as people to be able to work together as partners?" (It's a question I think most US executives don't consider till a failure of personal realtionships bites the business.)
I'd assume the same trying to work with China now.
"To me, it's almost like saying that to compensate for the reduced government control of everything comes an increase in self control, with penalties when this self control is not exerted."
Whenever people live together in groups, there must be agreement on what behavior is acceptable, or the group does not survive. And there will be controls in place to enforce behavior. In some cases the controls will be internal - people will do or not do things voluntarily, because of their beliefs about what is right and wrong. In other cases, the controls will be external, like laws prohibiting or regulating some kinds of behavior, with punishment by your society if you break them. (Or both, with laws specifying punishments for those expected to know what is right and wrong who go ahead and do wrong anyway.)
Part of the issue for China is that the social agreement on acceptable behavior that worked when China was still largely isolated from the world does not work in a global economy that has different expectations. They are still learning the rules the rest of the world plays by in activities like this, and the process will be slow with bumps in the road. You don't change ingrained cultural patterns quickly.
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole3 comments Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...