How the US Lost Its China Complaint On IP 167
An anonymous reader writes "The World Trade Organization yesterday released its much-anticipated decision involving a US complaint against China over its protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The US quickly proclaimed victory, with newspaper headlines trumpeting the WTO panel's requirement that China reform elements of its intellectual property laws. Yet the reality is somewhat different. As Michael Geist notes, the US lost badly on key issues such as border measures and criminal IP enforcement, with the international trade body upholding the validity of China's laws."
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, it's an implementation problem. I would suggest IP to last 1-2 years, non-renewable. Then it would become public domain. It would democratize innovation and the incentive to invest in reseach will still be there.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the results are terrible. They upheld the ideological basis for the laws, while reserving the right to selectively enforce. So you can't make a business model around helping make cultural works more accessible to the masses, and pretty much every citizen of China is guilty of violating them, so anyone can be picked up off the street for offending a public official and charged with violating copyright.
I'm ashamed to live in the western world today...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean: many people everywhere is guilty of violating them, esp. in countries where the cost of software is a much greater proportion of income than in developed countries.
I do not know anybody that does not pirate software who is aware how to (i.e. asking someone for a copied CD). And yes I live in a developed country (Australia) that has signed on to your draconian DCMA provisions (thanks 'Free' Trade Agreement, great negotiating there boys).
People in glass houses and all that.... if there is a geek out
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean: many people everywhere is guilty of violating them, esp. in countries where the cost of software is a much greater proportion of income than in developed countries.
So then it's OK for the developed world to subsidize software that people don't really need in the first place?
The Chinese government currency manipulates to take American jobs, invest in the US to avoid paying it's workers a decent wage, and somehow they're entitled to free ride on my purchases.
I'm sorry, I'm not really seeing the justification. I could sort of understand if it were something like medicine or the means to grow food, but this is a set of items that for the most part can be replaced and are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, with IP, the US would not be relevant in the global economy. IP is a major export from the US, and without it, we could not possibly sustain an economy based on producing goods in other countries.
What is ridiculous is the tolerance the government seems to have for IP abuse.
A realistic economy (Score:2, Insightful)
So we would have to go back to something more balanced and actually produce goods in the US again? I fail to see a downside, considering I am old enough to remember when the bulk of the goods you could go out and buy here were produced here, and the economy was perfectly fine and the middle class was growing with actual savings and we didn't have near as much debt (personal/corporate/governmental). This is one of those things you have to have experienced, it is probably too hard to just muse on it intellect
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IP laws are the reason the GPL works.
If reverse engineering and unlimited copying were completely legal, the GPL would just be the default state of things. Removing obfuscation on code is pretty easy, pirates do it all the time. So is disassembly and reverse engineering. If it was legal, there would simply be no way to release proprietary software, short of massive NDAs and other explicit legal contracts. All other copyrighted/patented/trademarked things are easy to reproduce in fully functional form.
W
China revokes statutory damages? (Score:2)
It sounds like they refuse to prosecute small-damage cases where no monetary gain was at issue -- they will prosecute crimes for commercial gain, but not for example, go after individual file sharers.
Sounds like China has more common sense than our RIAA-paid legislators, but this isn't surprising given the insanity of suing users for $220K damages over ~$16 dollars or less of damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't sound very American (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Doesn't sound very American (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, the Iraqi Information Minister needed to get a job SOMEWHERE!
why bother about their laws being implemented (Score:3, Informative)
What's next? trying to push a world wide patriot act?
Re:why bother about their laws being implemented (Score:5, Informative)
why bother about their laws being implemented outside US borders?
This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention [wikipedia.org] and TRIPS [wikipedia.org]. These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily.
The decision basically states that china is not fully compliant with the Bern Convention, but they are within the letter of the TRIPS agreement.
Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why bother about their laws being implemented (Score:5, Informative)
This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS.
From the TRIPS wikipedia link:
TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense lobbying by the United States, supported by the European Union, Japan and other developed nations.
From the Bern Convention wikipedia link:
The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention since it would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 [as an alternative to the Berne Convention] to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, in the U.S. "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the Universal Copyright Convention obsolete.
The USA has always had a strong policy of exporting and forcing shitty laws (on)to other countries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In our defense, I don't think you should legislate morals.
The "moral rights" the GP was referring to aren't really "morals" in the common sense of the word. They refer to a particularly European view of copyright as protecting authors from misrepresentation and distortion of their work. Additionally, the U.S. actually has implemented a form of moral rights for specific visual works.
It's a tad more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
The way the U.S. Constitution is set up is quite unique with regards to international treatises and agreements. Once the U.S. enters into an international treatise, it is not only bound to act in accordance with the treatise in international relations, but the treatise also becomes a law of the land. And not only is it a law of the land, it is considered on par with other constitutional law, i.e., supreme over other laws.
Because of this very unique structure (I am unaware of other major political players with similar constitutional provisions), the U.S. tends to have more of a vested interest in either trying to change the terms of an agreement so that it falls more in line with their own laws, or to abstain entirely from an international treatise (e.g., Kyoto).
Re: (Score:2)
And more importantly: Congress is still the ultimate decider on whether any treaties/agreements become the law of the land. How many treaties have Presidents signed over the years that Congress has vetoed, rendering them null and void by the letter of the law?
Re: (Score:2)
And more importantly: Congress is still the ultimate decider on whether any treaties/agreements become the law of the land.
Treaties, yes, congressional-executive agreements, yes, sole-executive agreements, no. Sole-executive agreements with foreign powers do not have congressional oversight, and in fact may be unknown to people outside the presidential administration. Oh, and treaties are "the law of the land" (meaning at the same level of power as the constitution), but agreements are not.
Re:why bother about their laws being implemented (Score:4, Informative)
If you asked Britain in the 1800s, China had no right to refuse the "free trade" of importing opium no matter who it killed.
For losing to the British invasion, China had to pay $15 million in restitution to British merchants, open their ports to the drug trade, and cede Hong Kong to Britain.
But they were only enforcing trade agreements!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily."
Of course its not the whole country who are behind this, its a tiny minority of (honest?) politicians who have signed this. A lot of people are against the ability to do a job once and then expect to get paid over and over for it again.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people are against the ability to do a job once and then expect to get paid over and over for it again.
I suggest those people get out and vote for representatives that support their point of view. My guess is that those "lot" of people are not a majority and most likely not those people that actually spent the time and effort to produce works that happen to be easily copyable.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be no point, the current so called democracy doesn't really allow any kind of detailed control - there is too munch money in not changing it, so it won't.
That's a good way to make sure you never have to feel responsible for anything. Just keep telling yourself that there is nothing you can do. Lucky for you those of us that actually understand the system are doing out best to make sure checks and balance are kept.
The only reason the country is in the shape it is in is because the citizens chose for it to be that way, either by direct act or complacency.
That's like saying people who are against capital punishment doesn't go around killing people.
You analogy makes no sense what so ever.
Voluntary? (Score:2)
I wonder how voluntary many countries really enter these agreements. If you do not, the US and some other western countries will view you as a rogue state and boycott you. I feel many countries including China are blackmailed into accepting these agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as importantly, it's not like the Chinese government and the US government plan to do much trade with each other; this is mainly about whether private citizens living in each country can engage in trade. From the citizens' point of view these treaties are decidedly non-voluntary, regardless of whether they're accepted (involuntary conditions) or declined (involuntary interference in trade).
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how voluntary many countries really enter these agreements.
How much more voluntary can things be beyond saying "I will trade with you, but these are the conditions I will trade under." Would you rather a person be forced to trade with others even if the conditions are highly unfavorable to them? If you were saying that the western countries are saying "agree to our contract or we will destroy your country" then you might have a valid argument, but that is not the case you are trying to portray.
Re: (Score:2)
Like NAFTA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has a large military, but they run it like the Communists in Russia did. Sure there's a huge number of people in their military, but I'd wager just about anything that it'd end up going down like Russia versus Germany. With huge losses on both sides, but with the larger military losing far more personnel during most of the campaign. It wasn't until winter and the cold that the Russians were able to keep up.
Communal weapons aren't effective during military campaigns, either you have the weapons or you
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Good luck with the nuclear escalation plan there retard. Think everyone else wouldn't be joining in and obliterating you crazy bastards if you tried?
You would be destroyed by China in a land war - you can barely keep on top of a bunch of loonies with AKs in the middle east as it is - and youve been there almost 20 years off and on.
They are capable of kinetically intercepting satellites with a rocket shot from a moving vehicle. Closing velocity of 12km/sec.
Last the USA tried to knock a satellite out of orbit
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nuclear escalation over imaginary property may be retarded, but so is the "my penis is bigger than your penis" argument that this has become.
The U.S would not be remotely destroyed by China in a land war. In fact, I don't think they could take East LA without outnumbering the people there five to one.
You cannot compare a police action against Iraq against an invasion from China. There are two different motives. One is complete destruction, the other is to force a regime change. China would have the same
Re: (Score:2)
As far as NEEDING the US...China doesn't NEED to export to the US.
You are correct that there are plenty of countries willing to buy Chinese made products. Chinese made American products that is. China would have considerably less to export if it were not for US, and other countries that support IP, outsourcing the work to them. The Chinese economy is built almost entirely of product export and foreign outsourcing.
And before you think you know jack about world economy and politics just try and comprehend why China agreed to Bern and TRIPS in the first place. It's ce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind my last post. Freakin Slashdot. Your post shows up directly under mine as a reply and the other poster is hidden as anonymous. I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to?
I never once even implied that all other countries would stop doing business with China. I very specifically stated "US, and other countries that support IP." All I was pointing out is that the Chinese economy relies very heavily on these countries, (US, Canada, much of Europe) and not only for export but for having products to produce and export.
Re:why bother about their laws being implemented (Score:4, Funny)
that would be an agreement the US never agreed to, so no.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is one of the worst offenders in the world scene for breaking agreements.
I agree the US is "one of the worst", just like all other countries that have any amount of power and are capable or breaking agreements. But that does not change the fact that in this case this is just an international organization determining if two international agreements are being honored correctly.
But you would have known this if you knew the meaning of the word "sometimes [reference.com]."
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to be funny right? Or you just opened your eyes?
In Argentina, if you want to start a new business you have to sign a US-provided paper and put your fingerprint on it stating that the busines will not support terrorists organizations. It IS a US-imposed requirement through the WTO or any other like that, can't remember exactly what agancy or boty required it. I know cause I had to do it.
Regardless that I wouldn't support terrorist, and as stupid as it seems to me (Terrorist supporters tend to
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly (Score:5, Funny)
Communists don't believe in imaginary property... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do China's border measures, which allow customs officials to donate, auction, or sell to the rights holder confiscated goods, violate TRIPS?
(FTFA)
China can take your bootleg XP discs on grounds you pirated them...and then sell them? lolwut?
Quite fair actually (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems quite fair to ask that the rights holder pay the cost of production if they choose to take possession the bootleg product, as they are then free to sell it for retail price. Why should the rights holder get a bunch of free product, which they would otherwise have to have paid to produce? If they rights holder doesn't want to retail the bootleg product themselves they can refuse to buy it.
In this case the Chinese government seems to be ahead of the US in applying market principles..
Re:Quite fair actually (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the problem isn't as much the IP holder not wanting to buy the counterfeit product back. For all intents and purposes, the product could be tainted in some way or carry a liability of some sort. The problem is that if it was wrong for the pirate to sell the material based on the lack of permission from the copyright holder, then it is still wrong for anyone else to do the same.
You see, law enforcement isn't supposed to be making a profit from other people's crimes whether you agree with those crimes or not. And because the IP holder doesn't want to purchase them, doesn't mean they lose any right to them. Otherwise the cops could create a legitimate counterfeiting scheme where they find all sorts of counterfeit merchandise but never the pirates and thereby are guaranteed a profit by either selling them to the IP holder or the public at large. Market principles simply don't apply unless copyright law says something to the effect of "the creator or owner of the copyright has the exclusive control over distribution unless the cops find someone breaking the law". As far as I know, it doesn't and as far as I know, the exclusive rights are guaranteed by treaties which don't hold those provisions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But is it right to force someone to buy something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You see, law enforcement isn't supposed to be making a profit from other people's crimes whether you agree with those crimes or not.
So who gets the money from speeding tickets?
Re: (Score:2)
That is supposed to go to the general fund. Generally, it goes to the state first then gets passed back to the county or city in lesser amounts. But, that would be revenue and not profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, Ok. I guess I thought that meant Chinese Police selling the bootleg stuff on the street.
donate, auction, or sell
Actually...if China reserves the right to donate the bootleg material...they would NOT be talking about donating it back to the IP holder. That's not a donation. And auction? Why would you auction bootleg material back to the IP holder...that's an auction of one.
On second thought...I am right. This isn't just about selling it back to the IP holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's a bit more than that.
I can make a bunch of copies to give away to people in china. A custom official can then confiscate those copies, then donate them to a charity which just gives them away anyways.
-Jeff
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, except for the part where the party doing the infringement is now China rather than a two bit pirate. It's not any different, it just happens to be a bribe. Pay up for protection, or perhaps we'll use the bootlegs to undermine your business.
the real problem is enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
I spend a great deal of time in China. The real crux of the problem is that there is a WIDE gulf between the law and enforcement of the law (unless it involves anti-government behavior...then the gulf narrows quickly).
I can easily go to any one of hundreds of locations that I know of (and I'm a damn foreigner) in Beijing and buy openly pirated movies and software. Sure, it is illegal to sell that stuff per the law books, but the government just doesn't care. And when they make some noise about caring, it's VERY temporary, the press gets their story and photos, and then it's back to business as usual.
Government officials are profiting directly from winking at this illicit trade so there's little incentive for those lower on the totem poles to rock the boat. It's not uncommon for the owner of one of these illicit DVD/CD fabs to bring in the relative of some party official in as a "silent partner" to keep the heat off. Welcome to China. Now be quiet and enjoy your 10RMB DVD (complete with fancy packaging and liner notes) that can be had in most subway stations and street corners in Beijing...er...roughly 7% of the price I'd pay at my local Best Buy for the same title in similar packaging.....
Re:the real problem is enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
There is the problem, full in your face style. No matter what trade agreements are agreed to, China is run differently internally than the USA or European Union countries. Going to the WTO is like asking a police officer to witness someone robbing your car all the while knowing that the police officer will not arrest the robber. I don't think anyone has a full grasp of what would happen if the US simply stopped doing business with China cold turkey style... So, this remains a problem.
Re:the real problem is enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess what would happen is the US would go cold turkey...
And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?
Obvious answer (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?
Doubtful - at least as more than a symbolic gesture.
Those bonds have substantial value to the Chinese. If they have 100 billion dollars worth of US bonds they're almost certain to get 100 billion dollars in cash over the next few decades as they mature. If they sell the whole thing for a million dollars then they get a million dollars worth of various currencies now. As an added bonus they REALLY ti
Also (Score:5, Informative)
When you start talking severe economic moves, the US could always respond in kind. What happens if they declare the bonds to be worthless, as in they aren't going to pay? That negatively impacts their credit of course, but then maybe they are able to successfully spin it with their allies so that it doesn't. China is waging "economic war" against the US so they HAVE to respond in kind, etc, etc, etc. Or perhaps as you suggest there are actual war overtones and as part of that, the US freezes all China's assets, including the bonds. They find a semi-legal way to make them worthless, a way that doesn't piss off anyone else (and in fact maybe makes other bond holders happy since it doesn't devalue their bonds).
There are many people who act like it is a case of China holding all the cards, and the US being at their mercy. Actually it's more a case of economic mutually assured destruction. While it is likely China could cause havoc to the US economy, it is a near certainty that the US response would decimate the Chinese economy. Hell it might not even be any real response. China trys to tank the US economy, the US doesn't respond, the economy tanks. Americans pull extremely far in to their shells and stop buying everything but essentials, and specifically good from China (since you know the media would have a field day with this). The Chinese economy grinds to a halt and now they have a major problem of civic unrest.
Basically it isn't something either country stands to gain from thus it isn't likley to happen. China wants the US happy and buying their goods.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but then where would we work once all the other jobs are outsourced to India and China? :)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess what would happen is the US would go cold turkey...
And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?
That is *highly* unlikely. The United States is one of China's primary trading partners. And given that China a) has an economy heavily driven by a massive trade surplus, and b) is already suffering a massive economic blow thanks to the global financial crisis, the last thing they'd want to do is further damage that trade relationship.
Sorry,
Re: (Score:2)
Who would buy them?
Imagine you're an exporter/importer in need of some dollars. Who do you buy from? The cheapest ones being sold, of course.
Now imagine China trying to slowly dump all their dollar reserves by selling at slightly less than the current going rate. Suddenly the supplier of dollars will be China, not the US, and the dollar will fall as far as China wants.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What he was saying is that it wouldn't matter because any real damage it caused the US would be echoed into the world economy and it would limit itself.
Suppose you were the importer, when your US dollar buys three times as much US goods, you only need one third of them. When you holdings lose two thirds of their value, you don't have the money to spend on importing so the demand drops. China doesn't regulate it's dollar on the open market either. It's artificially set so it isn't apparent that they could pl
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I was going to mod you up.
Then you said "mute"
Re: (Score:2)
Err... What? That's just... Wrong.
Exporters/Importers aren't out after dollar-bills, they want to convert from one currency to another. International banks do not help, as they only hold what currencies you _already_ have.
They do not provide any 'magic' currency conversion, electronic or not. When you need to pay in a different currency, you sell your 'dollars' and buy 'yen. Always. Even if it is your bank doing it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I said..
Exceept that the electronic conversions won't need real conversions as long as sufficient deposits exist at both places the organization foes business at.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason why they can't do it is that if they sold the bonds, they'd have to deal with the likelihood of the people rioting in the streets. The money that the Chinese government invests in the US is invested here so that they don't have to pay it to their workers.
As such it allows them to keep the value of their currency weak and the cost of doing business low. If they were to call their loans, their currency would strengthen, and not just with respect to the US, it would strengthen across the board,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone has a full grasp of what would happen if the US simply stopped doing business with China cold turkey style
I'd say, it would benefit every country inbetween. I don't think US citizens would unanimously stop using cheaper china produced products; they'd just be a little less cheaper for passing through another country.
Re:the real problem is enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I've heard, DVD companies initially tried selling DVD's in China for the same price they do in Western countries, and only the top business owners can afford that type of thing.
China also has _far_ more problems that copyright infringement to get fixed first.
During my time there as an English teacher, the boss I had (oh and this is at a school that is a business venture of a big foreign university!) took 150RMB off one of the Chinese girls that worked with me. She only got 1500RMB a month, often had to work 4 hours over time every day, and didn't get paid for it despite the law saying she should be.
I went into my boss' office with a photocopy of the letter he'd given her saying he was taking 10% of her wages, because she had forgotten to sign her name in one day. Asked him what was up with it and got really pissed off at him, was close to walking out. I hate seeing others treated that way.
I've thought about bringing this to the attention of the university that is in charge of the English school, but I doubt they'd do anything. It piss' me off that many institutions from rich countries criticize the treatment of workers in China, but go full steam ahead and exploit it themselves. Bloody hypocrites.
I'm going to post this anonymously as at the moment I don't want to take any risks for when I go back there.
Anyway, as I said, China has more issues to deal with than copyright infringement. Despite all the problems in China though, I recommend going there, I absolutely love the country, the food, and most of the people. If they could sort out the pollution problems I think it would be the most beautiful country on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
During my time there as an English teacher
It piss' me off
Eyed laugh if it weren't so funny.
Re:the real problem is enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a visiting American Scientist during my prolonged stay in China and was the first American that many Chinese seen since the Chiang Kai-shek stuff from the 50's and 60's. I traveled some with the president of the American company where I worked (he was American Chinese) and so I had a lot of opportunities to explore many place that most Americans would not be admitted.
I literally traveled from one end of China to another. I am rather a low key guy but because of my title then each Chinese providence would hold a banquet in my honor and so we would drink wu-shing pigu (5 star beer) and a clear liquor that I forget the name of but it was potent... anyway, I found the Chinese to be a most proper group of individuals and were good to their word... except if government was involved then they followed the ticket that was being trailed out... probably for self preservation.
I really enjoyed the people and loved the environment... being raised originally on a farm in Ohio made me understand a lot more than if I was a city slicker. What I did find though was that the average person did what they had to do to get along in life. If it meant duplicating a song or a data file then it was not a problem for them... I must reiterate that their values were neither greater nor less than mine but rather that they did what they had to do to survive in the economy of that era.
Sometimes I wish that I had transfered there permanently. My heart is very similar to that of the typical Chinese individual and they had a warmth that I find missing in today's life in America.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
wu-shing pigu (5 star beer)
Suggest you call it either "wu-shing pi-chiu" or "wu-xin pi-jiu" instead. "Pigu" sounds like ass... I swear!
clear liquor that I forget the name of but it was potent
The Chinese, Japanese and other Asians are great at making wine out of anything - rice, barley, wheat, and so forth. One mouthful is enough to make me drunk.
You've lead a very interesting life. And you're a real Scientist with a 3-digit ID!
Re: (Score:2)
This is a... strange couple of sentences for me. You're really equating "surviv[ing] in the economy of that era" to copying a song or program? If we're really going to cou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect a trip to most countries in Africa would refresh the mind as to what it means to do what one needs to do to survive. It certainly has nothing to do with putting a pirated song on your knockoff iPod.
But it does have a hell of a lot to do with selling a CD of pirated songs for 5 yuan to somebody who can afford an ipod.
Try not to automatically assume someone is an idiot just because you don't immediately see where they are coming from.
Eh? (Score:2)
Chiang left the mainland in 1949 [wikipedia.org]. During the 1950s and 1960s he was President of the ROC, of course, but I wasn't aware of any significant numbers of Americans on the mainland during this period, the height of the Cold War. Did you mean "the 1940s," or is there a facet of Sino-American relations of which I am not aware?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he meant to say that after a few pijius the pigus look better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course if the westeners were less greedy, they could reduce the price they want from this stuff. A "fair price" is not "what you can get away with"
Re: (Score:2)
It is the same in my country, it is the same in Peru, it is probably the same in most latin american countries, and i'm sure its pretty much the same in most countries. The fact that you can see people in the street selling unauthorized copies of movies, music, games and software is not going to change. Internet is putting then at some risk, because some will download the stuff for free to watch/play and delete rather than dealing with physical media. If the WTO starts getting nosy and bothersome, most coun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The real real problem is that there's a tendency for press and web-sites that sometimes distort the truth against china, due to a general feeling that China is a very harsh place, etc.
There, fixed it for him.
The problem is, newspapers that praise China, are less likely to be purchased by the general population, who prefer reading articles that agree with their own view.
In a small way, it's related to money.
Re: (Score:2)
I've found that to be so true.
People don't read things like newspapers to learn about the world, they read them to confirm their already held assumptions.
My already held assupmtion is that it all ties back to the fact noone likes to hear that they are wrong, whilst everyone likes to hear they are right!
Re: (Score:1)
Strangely, it applies to us Slashdot readers too.
We (IT people) may stick to our point of views on IT issues. Yet we can discuss non-IT issues objectively.
Non-IT persons may stick to their point of views on non-IT issues. Yet they can discuss IT issues objectively.
(Blessed is the corporate tech support, for he/she can see both sides.)
Re: (Score:1)
(Blessed is the corporate tech support, for he/she can see both sides.)
And yet is listened to by neither ;-)
Haha (Score:3, Funny)
If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.
If you think the economy is bad now, what do you think it will be like when we hurt every business that deals with china?
Re: (Score:2)
It would really suck. Somebody has to provide us with cheap shit. Otherwise we'll have to start working hard for it ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Haha (Score:5, Informative)
If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.
The punitive measures are not "lets stop trade with China".
Normally the WTO gives the wronged party permission to institute tariffs/duties on specific goods from the offending country, equal to the losses sustained by the aggrieved. Here's a recent example [northwestern.edu] of the USA raising tariffs on cheese imported from Europe.
Re: (Score:1)
All the bras will become more expensive. Think of the WOMEN!
US lawyers (Score:1)
Want to introduce patents disease into China, huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the wise US forefathers saw patents as a meaningful concept doesn't mean everyone across the world share the same wisdom.
Well, China became a party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1985, so this is not exactly news. (Also, the U.S. complaint didn't have anything to do with patents)
Though no one is going to deny the influence of the U.S. in pushing stronger IP protection throughout the world, patents by no means originated with the U.S. Furthermore, as a practical matter, since the vast majority of countries in the world are parties to the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, and TRIPS, e
We shouldn't even be trading with China (Score:1)
We shouldn't even be trading with China. By doing so we are propping up a repressive regime.
First it was Nixon's ill conceived openess policy with China, then GW allowing them into the WTO.
We would have been better off with India as a manufacturing base.
IPKat (Score:5, Informative)
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/01/breaking-news-wto-panel-report-on-us.html [blogspot.com].
However, IPKat concludes that it's more of a score-draw than a loss by the US.
As the USA just ignore's WTO.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
In capitalist America, IP laws kill you!
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that American capitalism has already had far too much success in persuading other countries that US law (particularly with regard to IP) applies to everyone else too.
It's often a precondition of so-called "free-trade" agreements that usually result in everyone except the US getting shafted. Hence here in Australia, our FTA has saddled us with IP agreements which are recognised by our own legislative committees approximately as "lamentably and inexcu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In reality, Slashdot focuses more on Linux and less on Windows than any simple news aggregator would. They do have a bias, but it's exactly the opposite of your conspiratorial theory. So, no, nobody sensible thinks Microsoft shilling is going on here. In fact, it woul