New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 84
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 84 of 95 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,680 of 1899
  1. #1661
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    5,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    My take, Hanermo, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is that tariffs to level the playing field would be a good idea.
    In the case of China, tariffs are a bad idea. They have a history of being pushed around by other countries (Opium Wars, etc) so other alternatives that are not in-yer-face-demands work better.

    That's if you actually care about improving trade instead of making yourself look like a bigshot.

  2. #1662
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    582
    Likes (Received)
    6181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    It should be noted that If you do not have the correct patent covering your product, you do not, necessarily, have any protection in another country.
    True enough, Mark. But if you have, say, a US patent and someone from China (where, say, you don't have a patent) copies your product -- the Chinese copycat isn't free to sell in the US. Most patent seekers will file only where they see major markets.

    The whole patent thing has become a bit of a morass. These days it's as much a sort of legal strong arm tactic used between massive companies, with patent trolls on the side, as it is a protection for the hard work of inventors. That's another story.

  3. #1663
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    582
    Likes (Received)
    6181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    In the case of China, tariffs are a bad idea. They have a history of being pushed around by other countries (Opium Wars, etc) so other alternatives that are not in-yer-face-demands work better.

    That's if you actually care about improving trade instead of making yourself look like a bigshot.
    Two points. First -- by having an orderly process rather than a tweet-a-holic approach to assuring a level playing field, it's less in-your-face. Every maker, in every country, would have a choice. Improve your standards and have open access. Or cut corners and face tariffs on the way in.

    Second. Either way, fairly administered leveling-tariffs are a win for customers and citizens in every country. Either our quality of life directly goes up (assuming people improve their products and processes) or the better makers get to compete on a level playing field (also improving things for customers and citizens).

  4. #1664
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    4,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4126
    Likes (Received)
    12881

    Default

    Re the current trade war then this surprised me but not nearly as much as it should have.

    Car manufacturing in China.

    YouTube

    YouTube

    YouTube

  5. #1665
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1993
    Likes (Received)
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    My take, Hanermo, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is that tariffs to level the playing field would be a good idea. But that leveling should include the reduced costs (grabbed by any supplier) of things like child labor, stolen IP, air and water pollution, unsafe products with no recall or remediation process, and excessive greenhouse gas emissions throughout the supply chain. That way suppliers would either have to up their game (for example, less pollution from coal-fired plants in China or India) or see countervailing tariffs.

    This of course, wouldn't happen with our current administration, which not only doesn't admit to any problems with pollution or climate change, but is actively working to dismantle whatever progress has been made in the past decade or so. So, we're not about to adopt more efficient production systems or more efficient products here, even if it might improve our global competitiveness and greatly reduce the "debt" we're leaving to our kids.

    Seems we're now bent on re-creating the short-sighted environmental collapse of an Easter Island -- now on a more global basis?
    The trade issue is based on certain things which are problems. These are issues which can no longer be ignored by the US. These same basic issues being addressed could benefit the EU also and so I often wonder why the EU or at least the individual countries are not supportive of these kinds of redress to trade. Seems like it is much better to be on the same track here.

  6. #1666
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1993
    Likes (Received)
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    In the case of China, tariffs are a bad idea. They have a history of being pushed around by other countries (Opium Wars, etc) so other alternatives that are not in-yer-face-demands work better.

    That's if you actually care about improving trade instead of making yourself look like a bigshot.
    It is a bad idea to allow China to trade in this manner. Also it is wrong that American companies should currently expect anything else except the problems there are. I understand there are people who do not wish any changes since their interests are to make profits and earn money from the way things are.

  7. Likes ratbldr427 liked this post
  8. #1667
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    4,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4126
    Likes (Received)
    12881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    The trade issue is based on certain things which are problems. These are issues which can no longer be ignored by the US. These same basic issues being addressed could benefit the EU also and so I often wonder why the EU or at least the individual countries are not supportive of these kinds of redress to trade. Seems like it is much better to be on the same track here.
    There are issues that shouldn't be ignored but I doubt very much if a tarif war is the way to deal with it. Some will disagree with the comparison but it's a bit like the Vietnamese war. The longer it continued the less support it had in the USA.

    China is probably better equipped to handle a trade war, and especially a lengthy one, than the USA. In the USA unpopular political issues costs votes more than in China.

  9. #1668
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    9,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    503
    Likes (Received)
    7619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    There are issues that shouldn't be ignored but I doubt very much if a tarif war is the way to deal with it. Some will disagree with the comparison but it's a bit like the Vietnamese war. The longer it continued the less support it had in the USA.

    China is probably better equipped to handle a trade war, and especially a lengthy one, than the USA. In the USA unpopular political issues costs votes more than in China.
    But the trick is to make the "some logical and justified" war a bit painful at home.
    Then you can "solve" the war just in time for elections and look like a hero pulling that few percent you need.
    I think that playbook has be written and proven to work.
    Elections here are not about the majority as so many are set no matter what. It's about that 3-10% in the middle and swinging them.
    Bob

  10. #1669
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    582
    Likes (Received)
    6181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    The trade issue is based on certain things which are problems. These are issues which can no longer be ignored by the US. These same basic issues being addressed could benefit the EU also and so I often wonder why the EU or at least the individual countries are not supportive of these kinds of redress to trade. Seems like it is much better to be on the same track here.
    I'd agree that a united front would be useful. My guess is that Euro countries aren't entirely eager to side with the US on trade issues for fear of being dragged into a mess, held hostage to tweeted new positions, then stabbed in the back.

    So far we've blown up most every trade agreement previously agreed and changed our minds many mornings about who's affected, how much, and when (e.g Huawei or delaying tariffs to after Christmas because they will/won't/will cause higher prices). We've also messed up supply chains, added volatility to their energy prices, and disparaged various allies and trade partners along the way.

  11. Likes Trueturning liked this post
  12. #1670
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1993
    Likes (Received)
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    I'd agree that a united front would be useful. My guess is that Euro countries aren't entirely eager to side with the US on trade issues for fear of being dragged into a mess, held hostage to tweeted new positions, then stabbed in the back.

    So far we've blown up most every trade agreement previously agreed and changed our minds many mornings about who's affected, how much, and when (e.g Huawei or delaying tariffs to after Christmas because they will/won't/will cause higher prices). We've also messed up supply chains, added volatility to their energy prices, and disparaged various allies and trade partners along the way.
    They are too cautious in my view. They short themselves avoiding conflict. Until avoiding conflict finds a huge war or conflict. That escapes their guard.

  13. #1671
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1993
    Likes (Received)
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    I'd agree that a united front would be useful. My guess is that Euro countries aren't entirely eager to side with the US on trade issues for fear of being dragged into a mess, held hostage to tweeted new positions, then stabbed in the back.

    So far we've blown up most every trade agreement previously agreed and changed our minds many mornings about who's affected, how much, and when (e.g Huawei or delaying tariffs to after Christmas because they will/won't/will cause higher prices). We've also messed up supply chains, added volatility to their energy prices, and disparaged various allies and trade partners along the way.

    Which trade agreements have we “blown up” in your view?

  14. #1672
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1993
    Likes (Received)
    406

    Default

    Mr. Pete I heard reporting that Democrats are not supportive of the China tariffs being removed. This is a area of agreement it seems. Whether or not persons have been paid money in the past to join with China while not having good compensation from US companies it seems that it is generally agreed by both parties that something must be done as the current state is not sustainable.

  15. #1673
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    8,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    582
    Likes (Received)
    6181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    Which trade agreements have we “blown up” in your view?
    Quick review. Used to be that conservative administrations were in favor of free trade (helps producers sell stuff) and were negotiated in a win-win spirit. You do what we do best, we do what we do best, and we trade.

    Both liberals and conservatives tended to negotiate trade agreements somewhat in private, honored them, and kept trade as sort of a separate issue from politics and posturing. In comes Trump with a fuck-everyone-that's-not-me attitude, an initially isolationist view, and a very erratic style with Trump tweeting stuff and what few competent trade negotiators around left scrambling.

    So, we put tariffs on allies aluminum and steel, blow up NAFTA, rescind TPP, threaten tariffs for anyone Trump doesn't like for other reasons (e.g. Trump not liking Mexico because it didn't want to pay for the wall). We urge the UK to Brexit, and pretty much want to drop TTIP and CAFTA in favor of one on one agreements. As a side effect both our own companies' and our allies industries see supply chain disruption.

    At the same time we drop out of the Paris climate accord, tear up the Iran nuclear deal (with it's own set of trade sanctions), and start a trade war with China. The only predictable element in all of this is that if it's something that happened in the eight years prior (from Michelle's vegetable garden to most any agreement or auto efficiency regulation), we tear it up. Trump apparently still wants payback for his humiliation at an Obama press club dinner years ago, regardless of what it means for the country and our future.

    We also use our dollar-denominated financial system to exert political pressure, causing more and more nations to look for alternative payment systems (this will eventually be a huge loss for the US). Meanwhile we embrace despots rather than allies (Putin in Russia, Kim over the Japanese, etc.).

    So, yeah, there's been some "blowing up" of past agreements and alliances.

    As noted above, I realize and believe that renegotiating agreements to have a level playing field - particularly as outlined above in the case of China - makes good sense. But we ought to be doing it with greater predictability, less "me great, you chump" theatrics, and more of a sense that our word and contracts can be trusted, especially with allies. There are real issues to be dealt with.

    Note also that this narcissistic style - and the loss of trust and goodwill that comes from it - haven't bought us much. The new NAFTA is pretty much the same as the old. Repatriated cash isn't building new steel plants here. Instead it's mostly gone to stock buybacks - pushing up the Dow, but with no real added productive capacity behind it. Manufacturing recently actually saw it's first retreat in about ten years.

    Over the past three years, excepting the latest blip, we've actually seen imports and our balance of trade get worse despite all the talk and posturing. Far as I can tell this is because we're running trillion dollar deficits, even in a good economy. That borrowed money has to go somewhere -- and given that we make less stuff, our agriculture is stymied and on subsidies, and finance doesn't actually make anything - we spend it at places like Walmart and BMW showrooms.

    Iran is closer than ever to nukes. Pakistan is exporting the technology and we're pretty much ignoring it. Kim is lobbing new weapons into allies' backyards (and now may be able to hit anywhere in the US). Russia is emboldened in everything from invading former Soviet block countries to messing with our elections. Afghanistan is as great a mess as ever. And the lack of news coverage in Iraq doesn't mean we've restored peace and democracy and Iraqi oil is paying the trillions we spent.

    The Middle East is a mess. Our buddies the Saudis are tyrants, happy to cut up journalists in their Turkish embassy or bomb kids in Yemen. Peace for Israel is farther away than ever. The UK looks ready to jump off a cliff.

    Drug sales are still going strong in the US. We've done squat on health care. Trump now wants zero or negative interest rates to boost a slowing economy. After withdrawing from TPP, Pac Rim nations are realigning themselves to be better friends with China. The "Art of the Deal" (a book Trump paid to have written, then claimed as the second best book ever after the Bible) doesn't seem to be working anywhere. And firing people as the number one management technique, it turns out, only works in reality TV. We've filled the "swamp" with more swamp creatures than ever, with more churn than any administration in memory. Whether it's a Xi or a Macron, turns out that they won't be fired or intimidated. That leaves us pretty much kissing up to the likes of Putin and Kim.

    Our isolationism is cutting us off from some rare materials. US company supply chains are scrambled. We still haven't addressed the financialization of our country that has stripped us of jobs and plants. The too-big-to-fail are bigger than ever, and still running government finance positions.

    We're not prepared for a next recession. And the world continues to set new records for heat, drought, hurricanes, sea rise, flooding, and whole nations fleeing collapsed agriculture.

  16. #1674
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    5,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2343

    Default

    ^ Sometimes you've got your finger on the pulse of the nation, PeteM

    I would just like to point out that if Congress had not abdicated their responsibilities over the past several administrations, none of this would be possible. Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama created most of the "enabling" legislation that put us in this mess, and all of it is totally illegal. Just like a person can not sign away his rights, Congress can not legally abdicate their responsibilities.

    Much of what Obama did was not legal or binding, which is why the Donald could so easily overturn it. Our founders despised the thought of an imperial presidency, and I giveth a crappeth notteth if he was black, brown, or a pasty-faced honky. It's anti-American (to borrow a phrase).

    btw, saying that tariffs are not a good tool does not mean I think the situation was correct. There were lots of things that needed to be fixed. But swatting flies with a sledge hammer is not a good way to accomplish your goals.

  17. #1675
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    4,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4126
    Likes (Received)
    12881

    Default

    Halloween coming up and these look like being popular costumes.

    donald-trump-piggyback-maskeraddrakt-4.jpg nordkoreansk-diktator-ridande-maskeraddrakt-1.jpg

  18. #1676
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Missouri
    Posts
    292
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    152
    Likes (Received)
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Halloween coming up and these look like being popular costumes.

    donald-trump-piggyback-maskeraddrakt-4.jpg nordkoreansk-diktator-ridande-maskeraddrakt-1.jpg
    Wow.
    That was helpful.......

  19. #1677
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    5,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
    They do not just keep that 20 mm rmb there. They can trade it back into other currencies. Companies are different from people. I've been saying this over and over and over again.
    Yes, you have been saying this over and over again.

    But it's all wrong, even by your own links :

    "By the same token, onshore (or PRC domiciled) entities are generally constrained from participating in the CNH marketplace."

    Translation : Companies within China cannot access this phony money.

    The only place you can turn this funny money into real things is ... nowhere. Inside China you use renminbi. This is not renminbi. It's CNH, not renminbi.

    Outside China, it's even more worthless. Funny money. Confederate paper. Leases on Florida swampland. Dutch tulip bulb futures. Take a few thousand down to your local 7-11 and try to get a cup of coffee.

    Companies within China -- the only ones who have a reason to convert their currency - are not allowed to access it. They do not play by different rules. They play by the same rules. (Per your source and my experience.)

    ergo, the one full of shit is thee

    I'm going to stop here. Your links make cute reading but in the end, it coes out the same. "Offshore rmb" is monopoly money, only available from Hong Kong, convertible into the real thing only if beijing feels like it and at the rate beijing sets, but definitely not for companies within China.

    Unfortunately, those are the only people who could actually use it.

    Your own link again :

    "While there is but a single Chinese renminbi, the onshore and offshore environments for trading CNY and CNH are sufficiently insulated one from the other that two distinct markets have emerged for the two variations on the general theme."

    Right. One is real money that you can buy things with, the other is a pile of paper. The real one all goes through Chinese banks with Chinese rules at the Beijing-set exchange rate, and the phony one which can be turned into dollars or euros is not accessible to people with the real thing. Cool product.

    Even more interesting, the puff piece you linked claims the "offshore yuan market" will soon be 100 billion dollars !

    The monthly imbalance between just the US and China is forty billion dollars. Your entire "market" is supposedly a little over two months of profits for China.

    China has been doing this for twenty or thirty years now, they can probaly let Hong Kong play with a few pennies. It doesn't affect reality. Worried about twenty bucks ? Tail wag the dog ? I don't think so.

    "Offshore yuan" is a joke.

  20. #1678
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    West Virginia
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    It should be noted that If you do not have the correct patent covering your product, you do not, necessarily, have any protection in another country.
    This is something thats constantly ignored and its crucial to the stolen IP conversation! Trade agreements reciprocally cover patents only when patents are in effect in every country where you want to protect the IP. For example, a patent from the USPTO does not cover China unless you also have a patent in China. If you dont have a patent in China and you send your gizmo over there for production then its perfectly fine for someone there to reproduce it and resell it there with no recompense to you.

    Patents are market based systems and each market requires a patent of its own. A US patent doesnt give the IP global protection.

  21. #1679
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    116
    Likes (Received)
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Yes, you have been saying this over and over again.

    But it's all wrong, even by your own links :

    "By the same token, onshore (or PRC domiciled) entities are generally constrained from participating in the CNH marketplace."

    Translation : Companies within China cannot access this phony money.
    *buzzer sound* Wrong again. Ever heard of subsidiaries? Use common sense - you are suggesting all the money goes in and pretty much never goes out. That is incredibly stupid. Btw, let's look at what it says immediately before that sentence, because we'll be revisiting it later.

    Certain corporate entities are allowed to participate in foreign direct investment (FDI) in PRC proper.
    Offshore corporate entities are permitted to transact in CNY if the FX exchange is part of a cross-border trade settlement process. By the same token, onshore (or PRC domiciled) entities are generally constrained from participating in the CNH marketplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    The only place you can turn this funny money into real things is ... nowhere. Inside China you use renminbi. This is not renminbi. It's CNH, not renminbi.
    And wrong again. They are the same money. The only difference is in where they are traded and the rate. CNH and CNY bills are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Outside China, it's even more worthless. Funny money. Confederate paper. Leases on Florida swampland. Dutch tulip bulb futures. Take a few thousand down to your local 7-11 and try to get a cup of coffee.
    Right, we just covered it's the same thing, but go on with your silly analogies...

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Companies within China -- the only ones who have a reason to convert their currency - are not allowed to access it. They do not play by different rules. They play by the same rules. (Per your source and my experience.)
    We already covered this, and I said this, so I'll just post it here again.

    They do not just keep that 20 mm rmb there. They can trade it back into other currencies. Companies are different from people. I've been saying this over and over and over again, including the links you say you're supposedly reading.

    CME Group | Offshore Chinese Renminbi Market

    Participating banks are allowed to convert foreign currency into RMB and vice-versa by buying or selling the foreign currency with BOC at the onshore exchange rate if the RMB is related to trade flows.

    Edit: Remember that italicized above? Here it is again. Offshore corporate entities are permitted to transact in CNY if the FX exchange is part of a cross-border trade settlement process.

    Who do those participating banks get foreign currency from? You guessed it - the global OTC market for FX, where companies and others exchange currencies. Banks are the largest participants. What do you think trade flows means, Genius Christ? Use your head. Big money go in. Big money can't go out. Stupid idea. Don't work for business.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    I'm going to stop here. Your links make cute reading but in the end, it coes out the same. "Offshore rmb" is monopoly money, only available from Hong Kong, convertible into the real thing only if beijing feels like it and at the rate beijing sets, but definitely not for companies within China.
    Yeah, we just covered it's the same thing, just traded in a different way....keep looking stupid for me, though..

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Unfortunately, those are the only people who could actually use it.

    Your own link again :

    "While there is but a single Chinese renminbi, the onshore and offshore environments for trading CNY and CNH are sufficiently insulated one from the other that two distinct markets have emerged for the two variations on the general theme."

    Right. One is real money that you can buy things with, the other is a pile of paper. The real one all goes through Chinese banks with Chinese rules at the Beijing-set exchange rate, and the phony one which can be turned into dollars or euros is not accessible to people with the real thing. Cool product.
    same money

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Even more interesting, the puff piece you linked claims the "offshore yuan market" will soon be 100 billion dollars !

    The monthly imbalance between just the US and China is forty billion dollars. Your entire "market" is supposedly a little over two months of profits for China.
    Right, because as I explained above and several times before, the money for that trade goes through China. Money is not locked away in China to never be seen again once put in. Refer to above if you don't understand, which of course you won't, or at least will never admit you do. In fact, what's funny is that you mention this trade balance but seemed to suggest that you can only move out an amount equivalent to 50k USD - you said "Shell, Ford" and some other company. Do you honestly think they can only move out 50k? You just said the monthly balance between the US and China alone is over 40 billion. Do you think China only imports 50k worth of stuff at a time? Come on, man. Use your head. I know you have a brain. The rules for corporations and individuals are two separate things. You could not have a system whereby every single entity in China could only exchange 50k USD for imports.

    You're about 0-20 at this point. Do you really want to keep going? I'm going to keep making fun of you, and it seems like every time you reply, you just end up saying yet another thing that's wrong.

    It's pretty clear. You were wrong. You've avoided admitting it for a long time now. It started when you went overboard about an opinion I had and started writing checks with your mouth that bounced. If you had just kept calm and not said things you knew you weren't sure about, you wouldn't have been in this. You can keep replying, and I'll keep making it clear you're wrong. Up to you - I got time.
    Last edited by nyc123; 09-24-2019 at 01:21 PM.

  22. #1680
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    1,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1993
    Likes (Received)
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IrritableBadger View Post
    This is something that’s constantly ignored and it’s crucial to the “stolen IP” conversation! Trade agreements reciprocally cover patents only when patents are in effect in every country where you want to protect the IP. For example, a patent from the USPTO does not cover China unless you also have a patent in China. If you don’t have a patent in China and you send your gizmo over there for production then it’s perfectly fine for someone there to reproduce it and resell it there with no recompense to you.

    Patents are market based systems and each market requires a patent of its own. A US patent doesn’t give the IP global protection.
    What a rough business.

    President mentioned Micron who alleges a Chinese and a Taiwanese company copied their computer chip. The president mentioned it in his speech at the U.N. today.

    Bloomberg article from a while back.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-trade-secrets


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •