China Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://english.eastday.com/eastday/englishedition/business/u1a2725829.html

The intellectual property rights dispute between Nanjing Automobile Corp and China's leading car maker Shanghai Automotive Industrial Corp has resurfaced following the launch of the former's MG 7 series this week.

Nanjing Auto's MG 7 is considered a rival to the Roewe 750, a Rover 75-based sedan unveiled in October last year by SAIC as its first own-brand high-end model.

The problem lies in the fact that the IPR of both the Roewe 750 and the MG 7 is derived from the original Rover 75 model.

Nanjing Auto outbid SAIC in 2005 to acquire the failed British car maker MG Rover Group and its engine producer for 53 million pounds (US$103 million).

But SAIC bought the technology for two Rover models - the 25 and 75 - and their engines for 67 million pounds in 2004.

"According to the technology transfer agreement between MG Rover Group and SAIC, SAIC owns the IPR to the 25 and 75 models and any company must get approval from and pay SAIC for the use of the technology," yesterday's Shanghai Securities News quoted an insider close to the deal between SAIC and MG Rover as saying.

But Nanjing Auto disputed this view, saying it owns the IPR over the patent license because it is the actual purchaser of the British company and not SAIC.

Zhang Xin, the head of the MG project, said: "The difference between the two cars is that Nanjing Auto's MG 7 is a pure English breed".

SAIC declined to provide a detailed comment on the issue but a spokesman said: "Looking at the legal documents, it is clear who the IPR owner is. What SAIC is focusing on is the development of its own-brand models and we hope Nanjing Auto will also do a good job in developing its own-brand models," he added.

"An asset sales agreement signed before a company's bankruptcy is protected by the law," said Bill Fisher, executive vice president of AmAsia International Inc, the leading importer and distributor of Chinese automobiles to North America.

Fisher issued a warning to future overseas distributors of the MG 7 to be aware of the risks of IPR disputes.
No MGs for the US and EU markets.
Nanjing can sell only MG TF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
...SAIC own IPR's but not EXCLUSIVE IPR's. They own IPR's to the K series Euro 3 engines but not the Euro 4 engines. So SAIC are stuffed if they want to sell Euro 4 complaint K series engines in Europe.

NAC did the better deal. The real question for me as a consumer is:

- Is the Roewe 750 as safe as the MG 7?
- If NAC have the most advanced factory in China then how are SAIC making their models? Bit of cardboard and glue?
- NAC have said they will use high grade steel on their designs. Will SAIC?
- MG brand is well known and respected in Europe. Will the Roewe 750 depreciate badly?

Personally I just don't see why anyone would want a 750. NAC's models look much better and they come with the legendary MG badge. They also make a Rwd version of the MG ZT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Also interesting at the lack of legal activity from SAIC...why are they not already threatening legal action if they feel so confident of the deal they have done?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Trouble is NAC has run out of money...........simply that. Also the US is facing a Major recession which will catch China out. Cab drivers and bar tenders are borrowing cash to buy into the stock market.........China is going to STOP buying US bonds very soon.

CRASH!

Oh well.......................:)
Always look on the bright side of life!
Mega
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
mgrovernut said:
NAC did the better deal. The real question for me as a consumer is:

- Is the Roewe 750 as safe as the MG 7?
Probably not since it has been stretched.

- If NAC have the most advanced factory in China
It doesn't.

then how are SAIC making their models? Bit of cardboard and glue?
Using their experience of building Chevrolets and VWs.

- NAC have said they will use high grade steel on their designs. Will SAIC?
They said they would not price compete.

- MG brand is well known and respected in Europe. Will the Roewe 750 depreciate badly?
Again, who knows.

Personally I just don't see why anyone would want a 750.
It's legal. The other one is not.

Also interesting at the lack of legal activity from SAIC...why are they not already threatening legal action if they feel so confident of the deal they have done?
The communist party doesn't like one state-owned Chinese firm suing another state-owned Chinese firm in foreign courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Mega said:
Trouble is NAC has run out of money...........simply that. Also the US is facing a Major recession which will catch China out. Cab drivers and bar tenders are borrowing cash to buy into the stock market.........China is going to STOP buying US bonds very soon.

CRASH!

Oh well.......................:)
Always look on the bright side of life!
Mega
NAC hasn't run out of money. It's asking for more cash to expand more quickly. SAIC did the same thing...Like SAIC they are also floating off some of the business so that they can rapidly develop new products and become the first truly global Chinese motor giant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Real_I_hate_china please could you explain why Eversheds (a top UK/US firm of lawyers) has advised NAC that the IPR's for MG models are separate to the IPR's for Rover models? Could you also explain why PricewaterhouseCoopers also carried out the same due dilligence when liquidating MGR and came to the same conclusion?

Do you believe everything Roewe distributers tell you?

The MG production line is actually able to make several cars on one production line. As I understand it, it can actually make more different models on the same line than any other line on the PLANET. It has 650 state of the art welding Robots alone. Most Chinese car plants use labour to do the same thing. I would rather a reliable Robot welded my car than a person. Can you tell me with CERTAINTY that the Roewe line is as good as the NAC line developed by BMW and Rover? If so please verify this with facts.

Also WHY on earth will US consumers want Euro 3 compliant engines with head gasket problems from Roewe when Nanjing has Euro 4 compliant engines with no head gasket issues?

50 million bought NAC one hell of a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Apparantly PwC said that SAIC only acquired 2% of MGR's IPR's and the were not even exclusive. The reason the SAIC K series is only Euro 3 compliant is because from what I understand they aren't even able to modify it in case they enfringe on NAC's IPR's. If anything the legals case will go the other way.

Real_I_Hate_China perhaps now you share my excitement. MG is going to make it big time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
832 Posts
Stop brand bashing with out the facts !!

I don't know how you can so one is better than the other without even seeing them 1st hand.

As for SAIC, well SAIC and FAW are the most wealthiest Auto brands in China.
SAIC builds cars for VW and GM and yet your saying Nanjing is better without seeing any of the 3 (S-GM, SVW & MG) ????
FYI VW and GM assist with SAICs Engineering.

So if you think thats bad then why did MG fall into Chinese hands ?

BTW I'm not too sure MG or Roewe will succeed with dated technology in EU or US ;)

Yes it looks like I'm more biased towards SAIC but thats because they have the cash and resources to build and better Nanjing and while they have to build on their brand while MG is ok.

I still think China has a way to go yet with convincing the rest of the world.

BTW nothing against you mgrovernut ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Phaeton to put this simply. I have read how badly Brilliance and LAndwind have done in road and safety tests in Europe. I personally wouldn't buy one because they simply can't be trusted to be a safe or as good as a Western or Japanese car. Cherry made a car that ooks like the Daewoo Matiz but we all know that it's no where near as good.

So as a Westerner who just reads the car mags and the web then what are you asking me to do? Trust SAIC who have surely just approached the Roewe 750 like Cherry did the Matiz. Or Nanjing who have shipped state of the art Robotics to China and have inherited assets from Longbridge?

Also why is it that NAC are doing the NCAP crash tests for Europe but SAIC are not? I'm sorry but I won't risk my families lives in a car from China that has NO known NCAP ratings.

TRUST has been earned by NAC. SAIC have yet to demonstrate this to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Real_I_hate_china please could you explain why Eversheds (a top UK/US firm of lawyers) has advised NAC that the IPR's for MG models are separate to the IPR's for Rover models?
Never heard of this. The term of original Rover 25/75 IP to SAIC was that SAIC would own them(it is recorded as such in British Patent Office), but reverse license them back to MG Rover free of charge.

Could you also explain why PricewaterhouseCoopers also carried out the same due dilligence when liquidating MGR and came to the same conclusion?
PwC's arguement was that they were selling remaining MG assets to a company located in 3rd world where the IP rights weren't going to be respected.

The MG production line is actually able to make several cars on one production line. As I understand it, it can actually make more different models on the same line than any other line on the PLANET. It has 650 state of the art welding Robots alone. Most Chinese car plants use labour to do the same thing. I would rather a reliable Robot welded my car than a person. Can you tell me with CERTAINTY that the Roewe line is as good as the NAC line developed by BMW and Rover? If so please verify this with facts.
MG linese are old just like cars they used to build. It certainly doesn't have the efficiency and precision of the latest Hyundai assembly lines, capable of putting out 150 cars/worker-year or 72 cars/hour per line.

50 million bought NAC one hell of a lot.
That's because Nanjing didn't get much with their $100 million.

Apparantly PwC said that SAIC only acquired 2% of MGR's IPR's and the were not even exclusive. The reason the SAIC K series is only Euro 3 compliant is because from what I understand they aren't even able to modify it in case they enfringe on NAC's IPR's. If anything the legals case will go the other way.
SAIC owns K-series IP, and are free to modify what they own.

Trust SAIC who have surely just approached the Roewe 750 like Cherry did the Matiz. Or Nanjing who have shipped state of the art Robotics to China and have inherited assets from Longbridge?
SAIC actually built millions of cars.
It is Nanjing, a truck maker, that never built cars until MG7.

TRUST has been earned by NAC. SAIC have yet to demonstrate this to me.
Roewe 450 was the first and "only" Chinese developed car that I think was competitive enough to go west; none of Chery & Geely garbages even come close. And how did SAIC come up with Roewe 450? Money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Real_I_hate_China on the first point Eversheds and PwC bth reached the conclusion the SAIC bought the IPR's to Rover models but crucially NOT MG Models. So effectively they did not buy exclusive rights. SAIC certainly do not own the IPR's on the MG cars Nanjing does.

The reason SAIC are only making dodgy Euro 3 K series engines with head gasket problems is because Nanjing bought the IPR's and development work to the Euro 4 engines. As IPR's are inherited under UK law it's not clear how exclusive they are but Nanjing are certainly in a better position.

Finally Nanjing may not be making cars yet but they already have international dealer networks ready to go. They will be the first Chinese car maker to be truly international. By the end of this year they will sell cars in the UK, Europe, the Common Wealth and the USA. They are already unlocking investment from Europe and the USA because they own the MG and Austin brands.

SAIC may be rich but remember the tortoise beat the hair!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
I don't expect that they are the very best in China as most of them are a few years old now but, there are literally hundreds of them all working together. All other Chinese auto makers have a few tens at best, they don't come anywhere close!

Well thats what the chinese press are saying, so unless anyone knows better...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Windy said:
I don't expect that they are the very best in China as most of them are a few years old now but, there are literally hundreds of them all working together. All other Chinese auto makers have a few tens at best, they don't come anywhere close!

Well thats what the chinese press are saying, so unless anyone knows better...
From the Chinese reports that I read I understood that MG's robots are cabable of being programmed to weld and build more models on a production line than any others in China. You are right though, according to reports no other car maker can compete with Nanjing in the number of Robots count.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
phaeton said:
So then what have been the results of the Nanjing MG Crash tests ?

How do you know they're state of the art robots ?

What standards does the factory meet ?
Nanjing MG's are going to be built in exactly the same way as the Longbridge versions. Therefore the MG 7 will get one of the best NCAP rating possible (at least 4 out of 5) and the TF will get an excellent 3 out of 5, which is excellent as Sportscars generally do badly in safety tests. Think the all new Mx5 will beat it, just but I think I'm right in saying that until the new Mx5 arrived it had the best safety rating of any sportscar in production in it's class.

How do I know they are state of the art Robots? Most of them were installed by BMW who spent a lot of money making sure that they would be the best for some time to come (e.g can be programmed to build many different cars at the same time). As far as I know they can also intoduce a new model within weeks rather than months.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
mgrovernut said:
Love that vid!

Suppose this is why Nanjing have the ability to make 200,000 cars of one production line alone. SAIC can only make 50,000 a year so I hear...
And SAIC's cars, being partly (Or given the small numbers appearing, maybe that should be largely) hand made will vary in quality, NAC-MG doesn't just have robots but has a lot of automatic quality control equipment - everything gets checked, and not by a tired human who has lost concentration!
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top