US Official: US, China Plan to Meet on Civil Space in Autumn, Voice of America
“Kevin O’Connell, director of the Office of Space Commerce at the U.S. Commerce Department, said U.S. companies were voicing growing concern about artificial pricing offered by Chinese competitors and the forced transfer of intellectual property. He said the U.S. government was “greatly worried” about such reports, and what appeared to be Beijing’s different understanding of what constituted a “commercial” market.”
U.S., China plan to meet on civil space in autumn: U.S. official, Reuters
“U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in the United States this fall for bilateral talks about civil space, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday, amid growing concerns about China’s behavior in the rapidly expanding commercial space market. The meeting, which will likely happen in Washington, is not pegged to progress in this week’s meeting of U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan, the official said. “It’s completely separate. We have reason to talk to China about being a responsible actor in outer space, regardless almost of anything that happens,” David Turner, deputy director of the State Department Office of Space and Advanced Technology, told Reuters. Relations between Washington and Beijing have worsened since talks collapsed in May, when the United States accused China of reneging on pledges to reform its economy. That conflict could eventually spill over to the commercial space economy, but for now, Washington was keen to remain engaged on space matters with China, officials said.”
Puzzling to say the least. Many vague assertions but “theft of intellectual property”? Apple, Samsung and Tesla are manufacturing their most advanced products in China because they made a business decision to do so. Intel and Qualcomm sell integrated circuits to Huawei and other Chinese companies because they made a business decision to do so. Obviously if they thought their patents were being infringed they would file suit. Are these companies so naive they need the US government to make it illegal for them do business? The only actual documented case of spying devices being planted in commercial electronics in US-China trade was a Boeing 767 sold to China in 2001 for use by the President of China: Over 30 ;listening devices were planted, together with hidden satellite links to send the recorded conversations back to the US.
“The National Security Agency, the supersecret eavesdropping agency, working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence organizations, led an operation to plant bugs in a Boeing 767 used by the president of China, including one in his bed, while it was in the United States for refitting, officials said. The listening devices were quickly discovered and the Chinese government disclosed the incident early last year [2002]. United States officials have never previously acknowledged the bugging operation, and the Bush administration still publicly declines to comment.”
In the case of Tesla’s Shanghai GigaFactory 3 there isn’t a mandated Chinese partner, IIRC the first such instance. Test production in September-ish.
But in space we can’t even talk to them.
Thank the Loral incident for that, initially. The last 10 years’ CCP/PLA turn, back to political allocation of society’s resources, is reinforcing the distrust generated in the 1990s.
>they made a business decision to do so
Exactly. Chinese don’t need to send spies to US because we send the technology to them. Reminds me back in the days Soviets didn’t send spies, they simply sat in the consulate office and Americans that sold secrets came to them.
The quote mentioned “forced transfer” of intellectual property, not theft. To me, that means it’s part of the business deal companies like Intel were forced to make. If China simply told a company the had to license patent for a song if they wanted to do business in China, what would the company do? Probably look at the bottom line and decide whether that was in their best interests. But corporate and national interests are different. What if some other, American company wanted to license those patents and compete with the Chinese company who got the rights for a song? This seems to be about an overall pattern of Chinese practices which give their industries an overall, competitive advantage over US ones. (Or at least the appearance or perception of such practices.) That doesn’t necessarily mean those practices are a problem for the specific companies whose patents are at issue. It looks like there is also a concern about government subsidies for commercial space products (launches, most likely, but potentially also satellites or satellite components.) Those all sound like legitimate concerns.
On the other hand, concerns about patent law have also been raised over Japanese practices. And concerns have been expressed about government subsidies to Airbus and Arianespace. That doesn’t keep us from collaborating with Japan or ESA. It’s just the sort of thing that goes into negotiating trade agreements.
Not only do the Chinese frequently insist on forced joint ventures but also practice out right theft. The classic example is when they stole Cisco code line by line and even copied the errors in the operating manuals. I don’t know how effective suing is. Certainly it doesn’t seem to be an option in Chinese courts. China isn’t the only country to insist on joint venture s. There is speculation that the software issues with the 737 MAX are partly the result of outsourcing with a joint venture in India. India though isn’t developing BGVs to attack American carriers.
Yes, the size of the market in China attracted firms there originally and they licensed their patents to get in the door. But the resulting experience are leading many Western firms to close their R&D in China. Many are moving on to Vietnam and other nations as well as they recognize the true cost of doing business there. But is no different than the way Europe treated U.S. firms in the 50’s and 60’s.
A more serious issue is the use of prison labor in China for manufacturing goods. Then there are more than 3 million Muslims in “re-education” camps. The massive protests in Hong Kong over China’s crackdowns on personal freedoms and censorship are a third issue and the blatant land grab in the South China Sea is a fourth. Finally, remember that the government’s expansion of ITAR was a result of Loral Space Systems sharing technology with China that enable them to develop MIRV for use on their ballistic missile systems so we know that given the opportunity they will use any space technology they get from the West to develop better weapons to use against us.
These are the behaviors that make China much different than ESA, Japan or even India, ones that should be considered before getting involved with them. It’s why any partnership with them needs to be approached with great caution. Personally I think India, and not China, is the nation NASA should be looking at bringing on the ISS.
I have no idea what “forced transfer” means. But as far as general IP goes, this has been an issue with China for years. “…they would file suit…” Where? China really doesn’t have a functional civil court system, and Chinese authorities to a large extent don’t recognize the concept of intellectual property. This has been an issue for media companies for the last 20+ years. You could file suit in an American court, but how do you actually collect? You start having to get into the sticky world of trade embargoes and the like to squeeze firms on a multinational stage. One of the big reasons Chinese investment money (particularly real estate) has been moving into the US is because we have a (believe it or not) functional legal system, and the odds of someone just outright stealing your money are pretty low. That happens all the time in China.
A prime example of what the U.S. government rightly worries about is the theft of intellectual property from Micron:
https://www.wired.com/story…
My Congressman said that when he went on a fact finding trip to China that their trade reps don’t even deny that they do this stuff. They don’t care as long as they get away with it without consequences.