about IP infringement

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.

Click to expand...

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.

No they couldn't. As I stated above, it is not enough to prove that the thing is the same.

Click to expand...

Surely it is.

You need to prove that it is the same because the producer illegally acquired the designs.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.......