DPP or KMT: Different outcomes re: unification with PRC?

[bohica]

but the world hates "China" and "Chinese people" more because they are the most dishonest and self-serving people in the world.

Kind of a wide brush there buddy. Regardless I'm sure everyone in the world LOOOOVVVEES Chinese people's money. Love-hate relationship indeed.

[Mick]

I can't count how many people I've sat next to on planes telling me how many times a Chinese person has just flat out stolen their product ideas. A Japanese or Korean would NEVER do that.

Sure, companies like Samsung would NEVER copy Apple.

It seems you have a thing there for IP protection, to an extent I can sympathize, but having reworked designs to go around some of the most ridiculous patents or dealing with asinine copyright claims, I have limited sympathy because the laws as they stand now, where you can copyright or patent anything and everything forever and a day make no sense.

There was a case with HTC and Apple recently, in the end Apple won and HTC had replied it should be no big deal as it was related to some minor finger motion which they could rework quickly. Apple I think also challenged Samsung because they copied (or should I say stole?) the idea to unlock a phone by moving your finger left to right in a swipe motion. I mean, are you kidding me, Apple wants to claim all right to moving your finger from point A to point B in an effort to unlock a phone, and keep them for another 100 years, where anyone who wants to do that will have to pay them money.

Microsoft currently is charging Android developers 5$ a unit, because it apparently infringes on some of their ideas, despite the fact Google doesn't charge a penny. Sorry, fuck the copyright laws where someone with diabetes pays half their salary to get insulin, and its that price because every time a new advancement is made, it adds to the patented costs. I ask you, whos stealing from who?

[LURKER]

So when we watch movies of the Normandy landings, we should be ashamed of the U.S. and other countries landing on the beaches because they are being aggressive against Nazi Germany?

The German Reich declared war on the United States following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, in accordance with its military alliance with Imperial Japan.

The United States did not go to war with Germany to liberate Europe from the Germans. The overwhelming majority of Americans had no interest in involving their country in a ghastly war for the sake of Europe.

In any case, I don't see what World War II has to do with the price of tea in China. Had China gone to war with the United Kingdom over Hong Kong, it would have been the aggressor - as the rights to the territory were signed away to the United Kingdom by the Great Ch'ing as part of the settlement that ended hostilities between the two countries.

Do you claim that the Ch'ing had no right to sign "Han Chinese" territory away to the British?

[headhonchoII]

I can't count how many people I've sat next to on planes telling me how many times a Chinese person has just flat out stolen their product ideas. A Japanese or Korean would NEVER do that.

Sure, companies like Samsung would NEVER copy Apple.

It seems you have a thing there for IP protection, to an extent I can sympathize, but having reworked designs to go around some of the most ridiculous patents or dealing with asinine copyright claims, I have limited sympathy because the laws as they stand now, where you can copyright or patent anything and everything forever and a day make no sense.

There was a case with HTC and Apple recently, in the end Apple won and HTC had replied it should be no big deal as it was related to some minor finger motion which they could rework quickly. Apple I think also challenged Samsung because they copied (or should I say stole?) the idea to unlock a phone by moving your finger left to right in a swipe motion. I mean, are you kidding me, Apple wants to claim all right to moving your finger from point A to point B in an effort to unlock a phone, and keep them for another 100 years, where anyone who wants to do that will have to pay them money.

Microsoft currently is charging Android developers 5$ a unit, because it apparently infringes on some of their ideas, despite the fact Google doesn't charge a penny. Sorry, fuck the copyright laws where someone with diabetes pays half their salary to get insulin, and its that price because every time a new advancement is made, it adds to the patented costs. I ask you, whos stealing from who?

100% agreement Mick. I have also worked on patent avoidance. It is completely legal and it allows legitimate innovation and business to proceed.

Most patents are ridiculous. You don't actually have to prove the patent described actually works , you can just ream off huge numbers of claims to cover everything under the sun and back with hardly any extra effort. Many patents get approved without the patent examiner fully checking to see if there was prior art or publically available information.

Recently I look at an idea around automobile signalling technology. I think it's a pretty good idea. Checked the patents and sure enough about 9 years some 'professional automobile patenting company' got a patent approved with a huge rambling essay type thing that covered many things that didn't even exist yet and so loosely worded it's a disgrace it was actually approved.
This company generally does not develop these patents itself, it is a patent squatter. Just like cybersquatters they register generic patents by the 1000s so when a real entrepeneur or inventor comes along they can get their share because they 'thought' about it before.
So if I ever want to produce this device and sell in Taiwan or whatever I'm sure I can, but as soon as it starts making money and pops up on their radar they will try and sue me.

The other thing about patents, they are only as good as how much money you have in the bank to file for them and also to protect them. You see a patent can be challenged anytime and if you don't have the money to protect it you are screwed.

You should have to prove the concept works in the real world. Then get the patent.

[mike029]

I can't count how many people I've sat next to on planes telling me how many times a Chinese person has just flat out stolen their product ideas. A Japanese or Korean would NEVER do that.

Sure, companies like Samsung would NEVER copy Apple.

It seems you have a thing there for IP protection, to an extent I can sympathize, but having reworked designs to go around some of the most ridiculous patents or dealing with asinine copyright claims, I have limited sympathy because the laws as they stand now, where you can copyright or patent anything and everything forever and a day make no sense.

There was a case with HTC and Apple recently, in the end Apple won and HTC had replied it should be no big deal as it was related to some minor finger motion which they could rework quickly. Apple I think also challenged Samsung because they copied (or should I say stole?) the idea to unlock a phone by moving your finger left to right in a swipe motion. I mean, are you kidding me, Apple wants to claim all right to moving your finger from point A to point B in an effort to unlock a phone, and keep them for another 100 years, where anyone who wants to do that will have to pay them money.

Microsoft currently is charging Android developers 5$ a unit, because it apparently infringes on some of their ideas, despite the fact Google doesn't charge a penny. Sorry, fuck the copyright laws where someone with diabetes pays half their salary to get insulin, and its that price because every time a new advancement is made, it adds to the patented costs. I ask you, whos stealing from who?

100% agreement Mick. I have also worked on patent avoidance. It is completely legal and it allows legitimate innovation and business to proceed.

Most patents are ridiculous. You don't actually have to prove the patent described actually works , you can just ream off huge numbers of claims to cover everything under the sun and back with hardly any extra effort. Many patents get approved without the patent examiner fully checking to see if there was prior art or publically available information.

Recently I look at an idea around automobile signalling technology. I think it's a pretty good idea. Checked the patents and sure enough about 9 years some 'professional automobile patenting company' got a patent approved with a huge rambling essay type thing that covered many things that didn't even exist yet and so loosely worded it's a disgrace it was actually approved.
This company generally does not develop these patents itself, it is a patent squatter. Just like cybersquatters they register generic patents by the 1000s so when a real entrepeneur or inventor comes along they can get their share because they 'thought' about it before.
So if I ever want to produce this device and sell in Taiwan or whatever I'm sure I can, but as soon as it starts making money and pops up on their radar they will try and sue me.

The other thing about patents, they are only as good as how much money you have in the bank to file for them and also to protect them. You see a patent can be challenged anytime and if you don't have the money to protect it you are screwed.

You should have to prove the concept works in the real world. Then get the patent.

That's not what I'm talking about. I agree that having a copyright on sliding a finger across the screen is ridiculous.

What I'm talking about is:
Guy walks into a factory to ask them to produce his goods. They take a look at his plans and tell him they can't do it. After the guy leaves, they start making his product.
Tencent flat out stealing every other companies' ideas and forcing QQ (which itself is a copy of ICQ server-side with an MSN interface) users to use it.
Selling pirated DVDs where none of the earnings go to support the creators of the film/TV show/whatever.
The fake American Eagle shorts I am currently wearing.
The fake markets that the government actually organizes into shopping centers.
The DVD store I went in yesterday had a DVD which can Norton Ghost a cracked copy of Windows 7 Ultimate on your drive for you, you just choose your computer model and the guy will burn you a DVD for 10 kuai.
THEY SELL FAKE WATER AND PRINT OUT LABELS FROM REPUTABLE BRANDS.
I could continue forever.

Most of the rest of the world has harsh punishments for the production of fake and/or pirated goods. My sister's boyfriend's nephew is in Federal prison right now because he was making and selling fake DVDs.

Using another product for inspiration for your own creation is not a crime. Copying it 100% and putting an Apple logo on it is. The argument here is not whether copyright laws are too restrictive on creativity, the real point here is that the Chinese government only follows international rules and guidelines that it likes. The treaties signed during the recent pre-Republic period in regards to HK, Macau, Shanghai, Tianjin, Qingdao, Nanjing, whatever were all 'unfair', but all the other ones where China comes out ahead from 800 years prior are all perfectly okay.

Anyway this is getting way off topic from TW unification.

Looking at the amount of consternation the Brits had with tiny Hong Kong, their head probably explode if China asked for it back in the '50s which is what should have happened.

The Chinese didn't ask for it back in the 50's because:
1. They were incapable of anything productive. At all. They just had a civil war and the country was a wreck. I guess the Great Leap Forward would have given China enough melted down metal from pots and pans to throw at the British from Shenzhen.
2. They were waiting for the British to build it up for them, then they threw a temper tantrum to get it back, AFTER all the development.

[bohica]

2. They were waiting for the British to build it up for them, then they threw a temper tantrum to get it back, AFTER all the development.

You think China wanted Hong Kong because of their money? Nope. As an SAR Hong Kong not only gets to keep all its money, it doesn't pay any taxes to Beijing. And China has to pay the cost of stationing military there and stuff. Trust me, economically, getting HK back is a losing proposition for China.

[mike029]

2. They were waiting for the British to build it up for them, then they threw a temper tantrum to get it back, AFTER all the development.

You think China wanted Hong Kong because of their money? Nope. As an SAR Hong Kong not only gets to keep all its money, it doesn't pay any taxes to Beijing. And China has to pay the cost of stationing military there and stuff. Trust me, economically, getting HK back is a losing proposition for China.

I'm sure it is a losing proposition for China to gain HK and they actually didn't want HK back because they would have to pay to maintain one of the most developed cities in the world and the economic center of the East where most of Chinese exports and imports pass through, they wanted it back because it belonged to them dating back to the Song Dynasty and was stolen from them by an unequal treaty by those sino-phobic British. To think that China actually has to pay for the military to guard their control of the economic center of the East must keep Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao awake all night thinking about how much money they are wasting on their PLA soldiers. My mistake.

[Hartzell]

I am unaware of any reasoning in international law where the subjective determination by one party of a treaty being "unequal" then can be directly equated with "stealing."

Please provide legal references and relevant precedents (in the post-Napoleonic era). I would especially be interested in court decisions where a so-called "unequal treaty" was adjudged to be invalid . . . . . and the details of that decision. I am personally unaware of any such decisions, so please enlighten me.

[cyborg_ninja]

I am unaware of any reasoning in international law where the subjective determination by one party of a treaty being "unequal" then can be directly equated with "stealing."

Please provide legal references and relevant precedents (in the post-Napoleonic era). I would especially be interested in court decisions where a so-called "unequal treaty" was adjudged to be invalid . . . . . and the details of that decision. I am personally unaware of any such decisions, so please enlighten me.

Here's a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

Well if you lose a war, you're gonna get pound in the ass.

[Mucha Man]

I am unaware of any reasoning in international law where the subjective determination by one party of a treaty being "unequal" then can be directly equated with "stealing."

Please provide legal references and relevant precedents (in the post-Napoleonic era). I would especially be interested in court decisions where a so-called "unequal treaty" was adjudged to be invalid . . . . . and the details of that decision. I am personally unaware of any such decisions, so please enlighten me.

Here's a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty

Well if you lose a war, you're gonna get pound in the ass.

You have entirely misread Hartzell's point. Try again please.