[jhancock]

You can find many examples of China or other countries playing the bully. You'll get no disagreement from me.

Your point that "American CEO needs to think long term before moving jobs to China" gets closer to where we may find a solution. The trouble is that CEOs do not concern themselves with human rights in China or Intellectual Property other than their own. They make decisions for the most part on immediate value creation for shareholders.

[pchristensen]

But he's trying to show that any company that's concerned about its IP should worry about sending jobs to China, even if it's just for self-interest.

[jhancock]

If every CEO was a devote human, environment, and IP rights advocate and they all agreed to protecting these rights in the same manner, we wouldn't have a problem on this side of the equation.

Government and their proxy organizations, such as the WTO, are the ones that are supposed to level the playing field to ensure the CEOs have their hands bound on rules for engaging with developing countries. I do not believe we are close to handling this well.

[EDIT] It is fair to say that some foreign entities do a better job at respecting "global" thinking in regards to human, environment, and IP rights for their China engagements. As an example of worker "preference", several years ago, a poll was published (I think it was the China Daily, but I could be wrong) asking workers what boss would they rather have. The results, in order of preference: U.S., European (seen as more strict than the Americans), local Chinese, non-mainland Chinese (Taiwan, HK). These poll results seem in line with my experience.