On May 29, Fox Business Network host Trish Regan and China Global Television Network host Liu Xin (劉欣) engaged in a televised debate about trade disputes and intellectual property (IP) rights. On June 2, the Chinese State Council published a white paper titled China’s Position on the China-US Economic and Trade Consultations.
The paper starts by talking about commercial secrets and IP rights. It emphasizes how much money China has devoted to research and development, and how many patents have been applied for in China, but that does not change the fact that IP rights infringements by China are commonplace.
Liu could not completely deny this, so she dodged the key accusations and focused on minor ones instead.
The world has entered the age of the knowledge economy. Hardware manufacturing and software services are based on IP and rights purchases are increasing as a proportion of overall production costs.
However, China is an exception to this rule. Despite being the world’s biggest industrial exporter, it spends relatively little on buying IP rights from abroad.
According to figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2016, 39.8 percent of the US’ IP rights revenue came from the EU, 8.8 percent from Switzerland, 6 percent from Japan and 4.2 percent from Taiwan, but only 4.8 percent from China.
These figures reflect the experience of many businesspeople who operate in China — they often lose out in a big way in terms of IP. This is why US President Donald Trump has seized on the issue of Chinese infringements and does not plan to let go.
According to figures published by the IMF for the first three quarters of last year, Ireland spent US$62.1 billion — more than any other country in the world — on IP rights, followed by the US (US$40.2 billion), the Netherlands (US$31 billion) and China (US$27.7 billion).
Given China’s position as the “factory of the world” and its huge annual trade surplus, its spending on IP rights is too low relative to its exports.
China is a big exporting nation, but it is not at all strong with regard to technology and patents. According to figures published by the Chinese State Administration of Foreign Exchange, its revenue from intellectual property in the first three quarters of last year was just US$4.1 billion, or 11th in the world.
This figure shows how weak China is with respect to IP and further demonstrates that its IP rights expenditure is not proportional to its huge export surplus.
In 2012, NBA great Michael Jordan sued Chinese shanzhai (山寨, “copycat”) sportswear maker Qiaodan Sports over the use of his name and Nike Air Jordan trademarks.
Chinese courts initially ruled in favor of Qiaodan and it was not until 2016 that the Chinese Supreme People’s Court reversed the verdict in Jordan’s favor.
However, that did not stop Qiaodan from countersuing in 2017.
This and similar cases give the world a strong impression that China does not respect IP rights, so it needs to work harder to prove that it takes them seriously.
Publishing a white paper saying “economic and trade friction provoked by the US damages the interests of both countries and of the wider world” and that “the US has backtracked on its commitments in the China-US economic and trade consultations” is unlikely to convince other countries.
It merely highlights China’s lack of understanding and respect for the rules of global trade.
Honda Chen is an associate research fellow at the Taiwan Academy of Banking and Finance.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS