China Car Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Although I don't advocate it, it turns out that the near duplication of the car is not the illegal part.

A car is not like a piece of art or music, and so is not covered for duplication in that way.

Any car is likely to contain a certain number of patented features, patents belonging either to the car maker or parts suppliers etc., and this has to be watched for.

The big issue with the chery QQ is that GM believes the design prints were obtained illegally - e.g. stolen etc. That is illegal. The reason for all the attention on the fact that QQ and spark doors are interchangeable is not because it demonstrates that one car is a copy of the other. The issue is that the copy is so close, that it can be argued that it would have been impossible to achieve by legal means (reverse engineering) and only possible by possession of the original design data, which GM argues must have been stolen.

This will be difficult to prove, although GM will probably be able to cause delays and huge legal costs to Chery even if they don't win.

I don't think the distinction between duplication by reverse engineering and duplication by illegally acquired design data has been made before on this forum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
copying

hello fightingtorque,
one of the other arguments GM used was that Qirui used an original Daewoo Matiz for the Chinese governmental crash tests, in stead of a QQ. When this was true, than it was a very serious fraud.
Is there any information about the settlement between GM and Chery, I mean, what compensation has GM got, either from Chery or the Chinese government?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
erik (laofan) said:
Is there any information about the settlement between GM and Chery, I mean, what compensation has GM got, either from Chery or the Chinese government?
Erik,

It's a closely guarded secret. No public comments, and I even have some inside sources (on both sides) who I would have expected would have known, but they don't, or don't claim to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Real_I_Hate_China said:
Not in US and EU courts.


GM will easily win outside of China.
Whilst I would suspect that the Chinese courts may show some bias towards protecting the locals, I believe the US and EU courts will be fairly impartial.

I don't know on what basis you say 'easily win'. I am not arguing the morals here, I think copying is a dirty shortcut that many Chinese companies have taken, and without which I think they would have struggled to achieve so much so quickly. But this is a factual debate not a moral argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
please read, think, then debate or contribute.

Real_I_Hate_China said:
Well, GM can prove the illegal replication simply by bring in a QQ from China, take it apart, then put its parts into a Matiz, and vise versa.

New Crossover too could be ruled illegal by a similar method.
No they couldn't. As I stated above, it is not enough to prove that the thing is the same. You need to prove that it is the same because the producer illegally acquired the designs. This was the reason for introducing the subject in a new post, because I didn't know this before and you haven't tackeld that subject. All you did was dive straight in with your usual party line.

If the defendant claims they reverse engineered it by taking one apart, measuring it and duplicating it, from my understanding (which I didn't read on the internet) then it is not illegal.

The prosecution would have to prove that it is impossible that such close duplication can be achieved without having the original design data. How do you prove something like that is impossible ?

Again, not intended as a moral argument, rather a legal question. So please let's not have the thread filled up with shots from the hip, I'd like to see some sensible debate here please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
No they couldn't. As I stated above, it is not enough to prove that the thing is the same.
Surely it is.

You need to prove that it is the same because the producer illegally acquired the designs.
So you don't know how the "reverse engineering" works.

If the defendant claims they reverse engineered it by taking one apart, measuring it and duplicating it, from my understanding (which I didn't read on the internet) then it is not illegal.
How to reverse engineer legally.

1. The burden of proof of legality in "reverse engineering" case lies on the accused, not the accuser.
2. The party interested in reverse engineering has two engineers.
3. Engineer A takes apart and analyze the product, keeping a detailed record of what he saw and produces a complete set of specification needed to design a functionally equivalent product. Thereafter, Engineer A is declared "dirty" and is taken off engineering duties, reassigned to management positions.
4. Engineer B receives the specification and functional description document from A and start building a functionally equivalent product from this set of document. Engineer B cannot speak with Engineer A.
5. The end result is a functionally equivalent product that does not resemble the original; it is statistically impossible to produce a product that is 100% identical this way.
6. The reverse engineering party much keep all the documents and records of these steps to defend itself in a possible "piracy" lawsuit.

a legal question.
And Chery cannot explain how it was managed to produce 100% identical designs by going through above steps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
GM is sueing chery not for the money, but because they are scared that once chery arrives at north america it would steal the last bit of sales of the existing GM market. GM just want to stall chery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,268 Posts
IP issues

fightingtorque said:
Whilst I would suspect that the Chinese courts may show some bias towards protecting the locals, I believe the US and EU courts will be fairly impartial.
Am I missing something here or has the news of the settlement not been far reaching? I know the terms of the agreement were confidential but we can only hope for a leak to learn what they were.

In November FT reported:
"General Motors (NYSE:GM) , the world's largest carmaker, has abandoned efforts to stop Chery building a copy of one of its small cars in China, according to the US representative of the independent Chinese manufacturer.

GM and Chery announced a settlement of the long-running legal action on Friday, and said the terms of the agreement were confidential........"


see the rest of the story :

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto111820051924497660

Also you might find the following year old piece from just-auto.com of interest.

There are lots of anecdotes flying around about IP abuse in China, some true no doubt while others have more than a whiff of the urban myth about them. I recently heard one about an exec in a materials handling equipment company visiting a Chinese company with whom he wanted to set up a licensing venture to make the vehicles in China. His hosts made him feel very welcome and a significant degree of trust was quickly established. But he made the fatal mistake of not locking his briefcase - which was full of sensitive papers and blueprints.
After a tour of the plant he returned to his briefcase to notice that it had been accessed in his absence: the material was put back, but the papers were in the wrong order. A phone call to his hotel that evening confirmed that no further business would be transacted and that the Chinese company would now be going it alone.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Had a quick look around the internet but can't confirm whether hater is right or not about where the burden of proof lies. Most reverse engineering comment now relates to software and semiconductors.

The source of the information was, however, a group of intellectual property specialists currently in china, and they were quite sceptical that a court case could be won, but did agree that the time and costs associated with an inevitable lawsuit would be a major problem for chery if they tried to bring these vehicles to the USA.

Of course as has been stated before, it is not the current models that are destined for US, it's the next generation anyway.

Closest thing I found was http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/l&e reveng5.pdf . But I'm not an internet expert of course.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top