Skip to main content

Romney and China's 'stealing' 'America's' Intellectual Property

China needs to "play by the rules" when it comes to trading with the US according to Mitt Romney, who was talking about America's economic ties with the country during the third and final presidential debate.

He said if he were to become president he would label China a "currency manipulator" and added that the country was "stealing" America's designs, patents and intellectual property. - bbc

I have mixed feelings about this.

It’s true, the Chinese don’t have scruples when it comes to making money.  Just about anything goes as opportunism is a central feature of their worldvision.  As i’ve said time and again, when top-down exploitation is unaddressed, popular horizontal exploitation and opportunism is inevitable.  People will basically view each other as an opportunity, and their humanity (collective and mutual empathy, compassion) is compromised.  That is why they aren’t renown for humanitarianism, environmentalism, or bothering about minorities. Or at least, one can say that it doesn't come easy.

Hence, I wasn’t surprised when there were many scandals regarding Chinese-made products, or when video clips show children left dying on busy roads or riding around in tricycles in busy junctions without any motorist attempting to rescue them.  And given their top-monopolisation of intellectual and creative production for more than 2000 years, their monoculturalism, their racism-cum-xenophobia - their terming themselves 'Han Chinese' is also quite racially/culturally fascist - they are quite bereft of the propensities it takes to invent and innovate as opposed to stealing others’ ideas.

the only difference between America and China when it comes to ‘stealing‘ IPs, designs, patents, and whatevers, is that the latter does it without an employment contract.However, i can’t say much about the Americans' stating that the Chinese ‘steal’ their ideas.  There is no doubt about that of course.  However, ‘America’s designs, patents and intellectual property’ are also a result of ‘stealing’ if one was to think about it further than a Romney or Obama or any U.S. president wants to or is capable of. 

Come on mate.  This ‘intellectual property‘, to a large degree, is the acquisition of the ideas of the workers by a corporation....Apple, Microsoft, Warner Bros, P&G, etc, etc.  Oh, it’s all ‘legal‘ by way of the worker legally signing away her/his rights to her/his Intellectual Property via a 'contract of employment’ and 'agreeing' to not be paid royalties if a decline in the elite’s economic conditions require her/his termination or if they just don't like her/his face.  But that doesn’t mean that it’s right, right?

I’ve said quite a bit about this already in the past on this site and amongst others, so i won’t get too detailed about it here.  But suffice it to say that the only difference between America and China when it comes to ‘stealing‘ IPs, designs, patents, and whatevers, is that the latter does it without an employment contract.  I suppose that is the only significant ‘rule‘ that China is breaking. these Americans ever think beyond the boundaries laid by The Simpsons, Oprah, and Michael Jackson.  Silly people.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…