tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19386345.post3540203821412018429..comments2023-02-20T23:53:56.458+08:00Comments on IP Dragon 知識產權龍: Must Read Monday: "Shan Zhai Ji" in Google.cn Most Searched ListIP Dragonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06285334008761103494noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19386345.post-16439943362162061152009-11-08T23:14:56.614+08:002009-11-08T23:14:56.614+08:00I think a massive transition is taking place where...I think a massive transition is taking place wherein private ownership of technical innovation will be an indefensible claim. <br /><br />Not that it doesn't have any validity, just that it will cease to be possible to defend an idea as property when 100's or thousands of other people could have (and may have) arrived at the same, or a similar solution in the context of a stated problem - the truth is: most innovation is built on other peoples ideas and mentioning, or giving credit to those earlier innovators is nearly impossible (example: should the guys who invented the transistor be praised each time a flash card is used?) so these “knock-offs” are just the first wave of that credit NOT being given or acknowledged in a contemporary sense and after a long battle where the state attempts to criminalize and punish this as IP theft, it will eventually be recognized that the paradigm has changed and innovating will be for recognition rather than money. (this concept is explored entertainingly in Voyage from Yesteryear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear)<br /><br />In that vein, I have begun a project that I can only pray the Shan Zhai Ji (山寨机) will copy, and go on to innovate with it: www.cubespawn.comSocialCritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15305579721646445258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19386345.post-32041493239632987532008-12-17T20:24:00.000+08:002008-12-17T20:24:00.000+08:00Thanks for the post! a comment on your reply regar...Thanks for the post! <BR/><BR/>a comment on your reply regarding the "bandit" factories: <BR/><BR/>"So they are able to offer a product relatively cheaper than the original, because they didn't have to invest in the development of the technology and they did not have to invest in design and marketing."<BR/><BR/>To just say that they didn't have to invest in the development of the technology sounds a bit vague. <BR/><BR/>To say it another way: These companies did not license the technology, so they are stealing the technology. And as you mentioned, often times they are stealing the design and brand connection as well. <BR/><BR/>This feels like yet another indication of the chinese publics attitude towards IPR. And the young generation are rebelling towards IPR not just to rebel, but because they don't agree with it, it has no clear basis in their fundamental values of what is fair and what is property. <BR/><BR/>I don't agree with that sentiment, but I can absolutely understand it. <BR/><BR/>But it sure feels like the vast majority in China continue to reject IPR and that IPR has not gotten a good footing in China and been immersed into the education and business culture. Rather I have gotten the impression that people still feel it is something superimposed, unrelevant and connected to foreign powers. <BR/><BR/>As for the phenomenon, I found some more more about it here (though Youthologys post on it is comprehensive and excellent):<BR/>http://goldenchinabrands.com/blog/?p=573Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19386345.post-22525688404929318652008-12-15T23:47:00.000+08:002008-12-15T23:47:00.000+08:00Thank you for your comments.I don't know if that i...Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if that is what the masses want. But, it sure looks like a trend if it is mentioned in the Google.cn top ten.<BR/><BR/>I partly agree with the second comment. The bandit factories produce phones based on patented technology without permission, beside they infringe copyright, design (design-patents) and trademarks. So they are able to offer a product relatively cheaper than the original, because they didn't have to invest in the development of the technology and they did not have to invest in design and marketing. With this money the bandid factories can spend on creative design and new functions. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>Danny<BR/><BR/>IP Dragon <BR/>知識產權龍<BR/>Gathering, commenting on and sharing information about intellectual property in China to make it more transparent, since 2005<BR/>http://ipdragon.blogspot.comIP Dragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06285334008761103494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19386345.post-44607806913489890922008-12-15T23:25:00.000+08:002008-12-15T23:25:00.000+08:00I do not agree with you. Bandit phones are creativ...I do not agree with you. Bandit phones are creative. They are not knock-offs but add functions. If the big companies do not deliver, small ones will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19386345.post-16944849250230728962008-12-15T23:22:00.000+08:002008-12-15T23:22:00.000+08:00nice nice, shanzhaiji is ubercool...cheep, and hi ...nice nice, shanzhaiji is ubercool...<BR/>cheep, and hi tech<BR/>that's what the masses want<BR/><BR/>Winston Z.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com