What’s more amazing is that most of the companies going into China knew this was a severe risk, but yet they could not resist the lure —the lure of a ginormous market, cheap labor, and the arrogance thinking they could stay one step ahead.
Finally they’re geyting called out and taken to task, but, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we’ll have to see if the threats and negotiations work.
Company X goes to China. They do well, putting companies Y and Z out of business. Eventually they too are destroyed by new Chinese competition, but they make money until that happens.
Due to competition, this is inevitable. Somebody will be that company X. Be that company and live longer, or try to resist and die sooner.
It's a very pessimistic fatalistic view of things, simply assuming that local industry is doomed because the local industry is unable to enforce an agreement to stay out of China. It is assumed that any such agreement (if even legal) would have a defector. It may even be assumed that stockholders would demand being the defector.
The USA makes a feeble attempt to fight this via ITAR, but that doesn't help unless a regulator notices that something can be considered to be weapon-related.
“One example was the conviction of a Chinese company—the Sinovel Wind Group Company—for stealing wind turbine technology from a U.S. company resulting in the victim losing more than $1 billion in shareholder equity and almost 700 jobs, over half its global workforce,”
Isn't there an implicit survivorship bias in these things? Maybe it's 99%, maybe it's 80%, without the unkowns unknowns you can't compute that percentage.
16 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 49.7 ms ] threadFinally they’re geyting called out and taken to task, but, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we’ll have to see if the threats and negotiations work.
Company X goes to China. They do well, putting companies Y and Z out of business. Eventually they too are destroyed by new Chinese competition, but they make money until that happens.
Due to competition, this is inevitable. Somebody will be that company X. Be that company and live longer, or try to resist and die sooner.
It's a very pessimistic fatalistic view of things, simply assuming that local industry is doomed because the local industry is unable to enforce an agreement to stay out of China. It is assumed that any such agreement (if even legal) would have a defector. It may even be assumed that stockholders would demand being the defector.
The USA makes a feeble attempt to fight this via ITAR, but that doesn't help unless a regulator notices that something can be considered to be weapon-related.
While emphasizing the IP theft, the Chines government is emphasizing the remarkable profit "extracted" by US companies.
Cry me a river:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon#Patent_dispute
And many EU companies still haven't learned the lesson - they continue doing business in China and sharing intellectual property willingly.
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2015/08/11/rise_of_the_clones_chi...
Why these creatures are afraid of China?
Isn't there an implicit survivorship bias in these things? Maybe it's 99%, maybe it's 80%, without the unkowns unknowns you can't compute that percentage.
Read some 90's books on the same NetSec like Corporate Espionage, by Ira Winkler.