Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by motorest 245 days ago
> and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other

Not really. Everyone was extending courtesies to China, but China opted to unilaterally reject the notion thay others could receive the same benefits they were enjoying. Now you're seeing this sort of courtesies being pulled for the first time. And you opt to frame this as hipocricy?
1 comments
ExoticPearTree 245 days ago
No one is clean in this. Now, the thing is that China did not allowed all companies in and after 10-20 years said: yeah, now you need a local partner. It was like this from the beginning (and it is not the only country in the world that required this, to have a local partner with 49 or 51 percent stake in the company). So all the companies that rushed into China were aware from day one that they need to share technology and know-how with the Chinese.

I think the question is: did China ever took over a foreign company because "national security" or whatever perceived risk?

link
sholain 245 days ago
The West is relatively clean at least in this; they had fair and open terms for China which were not reciprocated.

Even those 'local partnerships' in China were not above board - they existed to steal the intellectual property from the partnered Western company.

It seems the only thing that can be nailed down are 'consumer brands' which are difficult to duplicate.

[1] https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241

At least in the context of trade over the last 35 years, there has been an imbalance.

As for 'Arbitrary Rules' - it's a fair claim and the US, EU etc. need to establish clear and fair terms. So should China, India, Brazil, everywhere else.

link