[bitL]

In Russia a theft of a company comes immediately after the initial start-up phase is over and company starts to post profits. Immediately noticed by tax office, groups of lawyers zero in and simply take it away from the owner. I was told about such an example from one high-profile Russian who escaped to keep his company alive. US entrepreneurs in China had similar experience; once company took off, they had to "share the technology" with some state companies that then produced the same thing cheaper and knocked the original company out. Kleptocracy is a proper term for both.

[antpls]

> once company took off, they had to "share the technology" with some state companies that then produced the same thing cheaper and knocked the original company out.

Without knowing the details, this sounds more efficient and potentially fairer for the society. It allows for information and innovation to flow in the industry, rather than a single company making absurd amount of money only because they can keep it secret.

It doesn't mean wealth is automatically better distributed, but it could help.

[bitL]

In general, this tends to kill innovation as nobody bothers starting anything new (no rewards, instead punishment for success).

[tepidandroid]

I’d say there are pros and cons. One consequence of lax IP laws is that competitors will rapidly converge on the same set of popular product features. When everyone has the same set of features, innovation and the ability to distinguish oneself from the competition becomes a matter of life and death. Resting on one's laurels behind a warchest of patents is not an option.

This is particularly true of a playing field as large and as cutthroat as China, where at any given time there are thousands of competitors jostling for dominance of even the most minuscule of niches.