a slap in the face of the basic principle of patent law
More like a slap to the basic concept of rule of law.
Patent attorneys are hopping mad at another effort by US lawmakers to undermine Chinese giant Huawei – this time by excluding it from the American patent system. This week it emerged that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) had proposed an amendment to the 2020 defense authorization bill that would prohibit organizations on the " …
Interestingly Rubio means blond in Spanish.....
Funnily enough the word for blond idiot in English is 'Boris'
Since we're playing this game, may I add that English slang for loud, evil-smelling flatulence includes, both as noun and adjective, the word "trump".
I'm guessing that there will be extensions on the use of 'boris' as 'idiot'. Perhaps serial liars will be called 'borises' because they've been 'borising'. Or maybe more elaborate constructions will arise, as a man caught lying was "severely emborised"?
And there's always the Guardian's cartoon pages, showing the Tory leadership candidates as series of buttock cleavages emerging from their collars.
So, you could call somebody a 'borarse'.
Hm, yeah, I'll stop there ...
Back to the 19th century when the US ignored foreign patents and copyrights. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, one thing is that 19th century US is China today. Getting China on board with Western IP was seen as a way of regularising world trade. Rubio wants to give China a complete getout clause for US patent infringement, and divide the world into the US and Chinese spheres of influence. It might not end the way he thinks it will.
The Nikkei (Japanese media company which also owns the Financial Telegraph) has a cover article from their English-language magazine describing this as potentially a new Iron Curtain descending.
How much does America owe China due to all their infusions of cash to help prop up our economy?
How many square miles of our country do they own either outright or via proxy?
How many American businesses are owned either whole or in part by Chinese stakeholders?
How much damage would it do to this country if China decided to demand payment in full of our debts, evicted all our citizens from *their* property, pulled out of the companies in which they've invested & demanded to be paid in full for their shares, & generally pulled the rug out from under us?
You shouldn't try to play hardball with an opponent that has bigger balls than you as it tends to get you hoist by your own petard.
Signed, an American Voter.
Actually, all that the PRC needs to do is remind the US Congress that manufacturing is only part of the process, and that getting the goods to market is a large part of it as well, and if US bridges keep falling down like the I-35W in Minneapolis in 2007, manufacturers worldwide might lose confidence in the US to constitute a market worth exporting to. ("worldwide" includes US manufacturers as well: no point in manufacturing stuff in California if you can't get it to market in New York, New York.)
How much does America owe China due to all their infusions of cash to help prop up our economy? How many square miles of our country do they own either outright or via proxy? How many American businesses are owned either whole or in part by Chinese stakeholders? How much damage would it do to this country if China decided to demand payment in full of our debts .... You shouldn't try to play hardball with an opponent that has bigger balls than you as it tends to get you hoist by your own petard.
What you say is broadly true, though the legalities of some of these actions aren't exactly cut-and-dried. China does own a staggering pile of US debt (bonds and suchlike) and might deploy this as a weapon, but it's a two-edged sword. Trade war, as the Orange Imbecile has proved, tends to hurt both sides.
What worries me more is not whether China has "bigger balls" but "bigger brains". If you look at the people now running things in the White House (and a fair proportion of Congress), they're strikingly second- and even third-rate intelligences. Listen to 'em speak for a while, look at their command of fact and reasoning: there are an awful lot of troublingly and transparently thick politicians out there. Trump has got rid of all the smart people—intelligent enough to think for themselves, weigh evidence and think logically, then contradict him—and now has surrounded himself with some seriously dim bulbs, like Pompeo and Bolton. His entire administration is characterised by mediocrity (look at clowns like Ajit Pai and de Vos, etc).
The Chinese regime, by contrast, vile though it undoubtedly is, tends to have a lot of notably smart people at the top.
And it's an issue in other hotspot relationships. All the commentators and talking heads focus on the politics and the personalities but they're mostly overlooking something really worrying: from Tehran to Beijing to North Korea to Russia—in every case the American top team is intellectually outmatched, easily, by the other guys. It's not just that Trump is as thick as pigshit; he's winnowed out the smart, intellectually honest people around him. It surely is no surprise that in every one of these cases, the US has been out-manouevered and is coming off worse.
Trump lickspittles Putin and looks like a kid in short trousers next to him. North Korea has committed to nothing while Trump fawns over Kim. Iran is chortling as US warmongers begin to realise what they cannot do. Even China, going back to topic, has ample cards yet to play as the US gets itself into ever-messier tangles over trade policy.
This won't end well.
The only thing I disagree with in that is describing the Chinese régime as "vile". They've killed rather fewer people than the US has since 2000, and raised an awful lot more out of poverty.
Simple test: where would you rather live, Baghdad or Beijing?
Of course, if you want to argue that almost every government is vile, I won't stop you. Scum rises to the surface.
Moves like this might have been able to contain China's develppment in computing and telecoms 20 years ago, when China had minimal indiginous R&D capability and had no choice but to rely on the western designs and western IP. By now it's too late - while the Chinese can and do use the US-sourced technology to a good effect, they also have adequate, if sometimes less polished, domestic technologies in nearly all areas of computing. Blocking their access to US technologies might slow them down by a few years - but at the cost of making the US-developed technologies less relevant and ultimately risking killing them off altogether.
A case in point is the fate of the Intel's Xeon Phi, which was a nearly-perfect HPC cluster-on-a-chip - easy to program, versatile, and delivering exceptionally good performance for a broad range of applications. China's supercomputers were soaking up a very large fraction of these chips - so naturally the US government decided to block their sale to China. While this wasn'g the only reason behind the Phi's eventual cancellation, I would be very surprised if the loss of the key market didn't contribute to the outcome. And Chinese supercomputing industry? Doing very well, judging by the Top-500 rankings - although probably not quite as well as it would have done otherwise.
Give it a few years more, and I won't be shoked if the US is reduced to sourcing the next genefation of supercomputers from China :o)
Technology stolen from the UK then treated as if it was a US invention? Hmm...
Are you referring to secure encrypted communications, which they tried to prevent the rest of the world from having through export controls even though it wasn't even them who created it?
Or... were you just referring to computers in general?
In addition to this, at the end of the Second World War there was an agreement between the USA and UK to share the scientific/engineering spoils recovered from Nazi Germany, along with the scientists and engineers themselves. However the US gov at the time allowed (and perhaps actively instructed) the troops to divert everything they could get their hands on to the US; this even included equipment and personnel in the process of being shipped to the UK. That is how the US got hold of Werner von Braum (sp?) (the designed of most of the US's early rocket boosters, including theSaturn-V).
You're referring to Operation Paperclip, which is well documented. However, the main weapon was money: if you were a German scientist living in the ruins in 1945-50, and you were offered the choice between an underpaid job in Britain (also in ruins then) and an overpaid job in the US, which would you have chosen?
Also, as in the case of von Braun, the Americans were probably more willing than the British to overlook small details like hiring Nazi war criminals.
The Brits did get some technology though (I even studied some of it as a summer student intern in 1965 at an AEI research lab). The Russians simply took entire factories home to Russia.
"The move effectively bans Sugon – a leading Chinese supercomputer maker, and its chip-designing subsidiaries, from buying American technology without permission from Uncle Sam."
Cue a new generation of chinese supercomputer chips which will drive Trumpton further into a technological backwater.
They are actually so frightened of the rise of China that the responses are increasingly bizarre.
One problem, I am sure, is US racism among the WASPs who dominate the Republicans and the management of government. The EU growing was tolerable, they are white people. But ever since Japanese farmers were evicted from California at the end of the 19th century the "Yellow peril" has affected US-Asian relations. They are OK so long as they are digging ditches in wartime or assembling iPhones. But thinking they are as good as the White Man? See the history of the 20th century. 70 000 dead in Vietnam for starters.
I truly hate to say this of patent attorneys, but in this instance they're right.
Whereas patents have become an instrument of piracy in the modern world, so long as they exist they need to be subjected to basic principles one might loosely describe as Rule of Law.
Chinese require technology disclosure to do business in China and American IP is mimicked and oft times outright stolen. Chinese also make it very difficult to do business and sell tech goods in China.
How is Rubio’s proposal and Trump’s administration actions any different than what the thieving coercers do to the yanks?
Perhaps the Chinese should work with Trump to protect each other’s IP as opposed to the B.S. they are trying to pull-off.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021