Indigenous Innovation in China: Soup Will Not Be Eaten As Hot As Cooked

Will Freeman and Tom Miller assert for the Financial Times that China's economic nationalism is exaggerated:

"The State Council began to promote “indigenous innovation”—a plan to support the creation and commercialization of domestic technology—in 2006. Then in November 2009 a handful of ministries announced they would implement rules limiting government procurement to products with entirely home-grown intellectual property, trademarks and brands. Two weeks ago, MOST [Ministry of Science and Technology] backtracked on the most contentious elements of this plan. Intellectual property can now be licensed for use in China from abroad. Accreditation no longer requires that trademarks and brands are first registered in China. And eligible products no longer need to have technology that reaches or surpasses international standards."

Read messrs. Freeman and Miller's article here.

UPDATE:

May 1 Anonymous commented on this post. I will post it integrally below:

"If indigenous innovation were only limited to those issus, then the proposition would be partially accurate. However, even the MoST revised comments are problematic, as it leaves open the question of where R&D needs to be conducted, and it also leaves open the kinds of warranties of non-infringement/lack of controversies that are necessary for government procurement to be obtained. Moreover, many Chinese officials have recently been trying to backtrack and remove the "indigenous" from "innovation" - something that has been discused for years but never occured.

However, we are still left with a bundle of issues: (a) standardization rules that contemplate compulsory licensing; (b) extensive compulsory licensing possibilities (although none yet applied); (c) interest in third world type IP issues - folklore, genetic resources, traditional knowledge; (d) extensive exemptions from infringement, including a so-called "naked Bolar" and research and non-commercial use exemptions; (e) tax subsidization of domestic R&D which may be limited to domestically capitalized companies; (f) subsidies for patent and trademark filings; (g) local rules that protect locally established companies and give enhanced enforcement for them - typically under local "famous mark" provisions; (h) lots of low quality, unexamined patents coming from non-service Chinese inventors which may be receiving local subsidies; (i) limited remedies for TM "squatting" or patent "hijacking"; (j) low incidence of foreign related enforcement by admin agencies, and low incided of foreign related civil cases; etc. etc. Not all of these are necessarily terrible, but they do suggest government management of innovation and of IP, and not an orientation towards private rights."

Comment by Anonymous