[Real_I_Hate_China]

I picked up something odd from the Nanjing's Oklahoma plant news coverage.

It is said that Nanjing plans to build three sedans in its Chinese factory. But Nanjing doesn't have rights to any of former MG Rover sedans; Rover 25 and 75 IP belongs to SAIC, while Rover 45 is a licended Honda Civic.

As I understand, Nanjing received Chinese government's permission to share SAIC's Rover 25 and 75 rights(to dismay of SAIC), but 45 is still off limit as it is a Honda IP. But if Nanjing proceeds withs its plans to build all three sedans, then it faces a legal battle with Honda. While I have no doubt that Nanjing will prevail any legal battle in China given China's history of disrespect for foreign IP rights, it will surely be banned in Europe and the US.

Will Nanjing really be the second Chery and illegally replicate another company's car?

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

I thought Honda had seized vital schematics and tooling from Longbridge after MG Rover went into administration, so how could Nanjing even produce the Rover 45?

But that's their announcement. As to how, I have no idea, but never underestimate Chinese's ability to clone things....

Even though it would be IP infringement to produce the 45, how could Honda actually feel threatened by a vehicle that uses a Civic chassis that has not been in production for at least five years?

Because it is the matter of principle. Rover 45 design is owned by Honda no matter how obsolete it maybe. Nanjing is stealing somebody else's property by choosing to continue producing Rover 45.

Continuing with Rover 45 production earns a bad reputation that is hard to shake off; an automotive pirate. When people hear the name "Chery", they recall an automotive pirate. The samething will happen with Nanjing if they choose to produce 45.

After the purchase the MG Rover nameplate Nanjing had to have obtained some concept and prototype vehicles intended to save the company, so does anyone have any information on any possible vehicles?

None of those went past development stage, so they are not ready for production without additional $500 million in investment.

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

What SAIC don't have is the IP to the MG ZR, ZS, ZT and the ZT-T(estate or tourer of the ZT), which are now in the hands of the Nanjing people.

MG ZR = Rebadged Rover 25 owned by SAIC
MG ZS = Rebagded Civic owned by Honda
MG ZT = Rebagded Rover 75 owned by SAIC

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

Engine, wheels, seats, suspension, brakes, stearing rack ... gear selector, bumpers, side skirts ... and of course the badges!

Surely, hundred parts out of thousand parts amount to only 10% difference, right? A classic badge engineering. Honda owns Rover 45/MG ZS, case closed.

My point is that the Rover 25, 45, and 75 are old designs in need of updates that where delayed by MG Rover’s finical situation, so Nanjing would probably either try to negotiate an agreement with Honda to obtain the rights to produce the old 45, continue MG Rover’s attempt to create a replacement based on the 75 chassis, or produce a entirely new product, rather than bothering to illegally replicate the 45 and develop a reputation as an automotive pirate.

Nanjing never licensed Rover 25 and 75 from SAIC(They just went to the communist party to shut SAIC up), so why do you expect Nanjing to license 45 from Honda???? Chinese consider paying a license fee for somebody else's design a waste of money.

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

how many do you think Honda own?

Well, at least the chassis and suspension. Try to build the car without those.

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

To be fair to some people on here the MG Rover Situation has perplexed many people. When SAIC bought the IPR's to the Rover models, they did not buy the IPR's to the MG models. Bascally PVH (former owners of MGR) reserved the right to use all the Rover IPR's on MG's models. Essentially SAIC SHARE the IPR's with MG.....

That's not what I heard even from the administrators, hence SAIC's threat to sue Nanjing until the Chinese communist party's intervention.

Furthermore, Rover 45 IP was never sold to Shanghai because Pheonix never owned it in the first place anyway, and Honda reminded the administrators that they owned Rover45 rights by paying a visit and taking drawings with them. So how could MG ZS IP rights be sold to Nanjing when Pheonix didn't own it?

Nanjing is engaging in an automotive piracy by continuing to build MG ZS. Then why is Nanjing doing this? Because Rover 45 was the most valuable car to Nanjing in MG line up.

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

I have seen a report containing a statement from someone important at Nanjing saying that they have talked to Honda and there is no problem.

Sure, as long as Nanjing doesn't produce Rover 45/MG ZS, all is well.

Honda's act of burning drawings and taking out critical equipment from the factory doesn't sound like an unconcerned party.

 

[Real_I_Hate_China]

SAIC spead a lot of gossip about who owned the IP, most of it was untrue.

Some facts concerning MG Rover.

Rover Brand : BMW kept it, but licensed it back to Pheonix for a "free" use. A license of such nature is usually non-transferrable. SAIC is in a bid to buy it from BMW.

Longbridge Site : Pheonix sold it to some real estate firm then leased it back.

Rover 25/75 IP : They were sold to SAIC, then Pheonix was granted a license to use it for free. A license of such nature is usually non-transferrable.

Rover 45 IP : Honda licensed it to MG Rover ages ago. A license of such nature is usually non-transferrable. Honda terminated this license at the moment of MG Rover bankruptcy and no one shall reproduce them without taking another license. But Honda has no intention of aiding any Chinese firm.