[serf]

Production in China has included benefit from the opposite side of protectionism for some time now; when most countries abide by trade laws, those that don't gain increased exposure to international markets by virtue of offering cheaper goods via production-sans-design.

China itself may not, but the production groups within China have a pretty exhaustive recent history of largely ignoring IP regulations whenever profitable, and the market response has been widely happy-to-consume.

For a single example look at the history of composite bicycle manufacturing from the 60s onward, with specific detail on the emergence of China produced composite bicycles in the 90s -- it wouldn't have gotten off the ground at all without blatant IP theft spurring the first half.

[ramblenode]

The main problem with this take is that the US and China simply have different standards and rules for IP.

China is not "ignoring IP regulations"; they have different regulations. Both the US and China are parties to the WTO and Berne Convention and cases can and have been tried. The US has won many cases against China in the WTO; it hasn't done as well making cases for IP theft and protectionism, which is notable as this is a (relatively) neutral forum.

[ImPostingOnHN]

The main problem with this take is that it fails to explain the differences and their consequences.

If the differences and consequences are the same as if China was outright ignoring IP ownership*, why does it matter that you call the ignoring "different standards"?

*- not that they aren't already

[ramblenode]

Can you point to a case that breaks both US and Chinese law? Otherwise, this conversation will be about vague generalizations.

The issue is that IP is a legal creation, so it can only be stolen if it is recognized in the first place. That said, it does not seem like differences in IP law are usually what people are referring to when talking about IP theft. That is why I brought up the WTO, which is a forum in which the US has sued China for encouraging IP theft--but most of these cases have not been won.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The issue is that IP is a legal creation, so it can only be stolen if it is recognized in the first place

The same is true of all crimes, they are all legal creations. And from what I can tell, China has the concept of IP. They're protective of their own, for example.

It sounds, then, like you're now agreeing that the IP is being ignored, just saying it's okay because China don't want to recognize it.

If not, I will ask again:

Suppose we have 2 IP owners, and 1 has their IP ignored by China and copied, the other has their IP "considered a different standard/not recognized" by China and copied.

_What differences do the two IP owners experience?_

This is the key question I asked before, and I am asking now. What's the difference for the IP owner? I ask because it seems like you're playing with words, not substance.

[ramblenode]

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. US law is not the same thing as international law. Of course US law, including IP standards, will not necessarily be recognized outside the US unless part of a treaty. It's similar to how the US doesn't recognize mainland China's claim over Taiwan.

That said, there are treaties covering IP that both the US and China are a party to which require certain mutual recognition. The US has sued China in the WTO for violating the IP provisions, but has not won most of those cases (AFAIK).

US companies can also sue Chinese companies in China for IP infringement and some of those cases have been won. Chinese courts tend to award much more limited damages than US courts, so US companies don't find this satisfactory. But again, that is a difference of law.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.

I'm not arguing anything, I'm asking you a simple question. I'm not sure why you are trying to avoid answering. Here is that question again, I highlighted it below:

Suppose we have 2 different IP owners. 1 has their IP ignored by China and copied, and the other has their IP "considered a different standard/not recognized" by China and copied.

---> _What differences do the two IP owners experience?_ <---

You are trying to argue that "not recognizing" IP and thus ignoring it, or "having different standards for IP" that lets you ignore it, is somehow different from just ignoring it. You have not explained how that makes a difference in outcome. Why should business owners care what excuse is given for ignoring IP? If it wasn't one excuse, it would be another, and ignored is ignored.