China - The world's hotbed of innovation?

[navtrek]

Chinese are doing a truly commendable job! cheers for an Asian century

And its true reverse engineering leads to Innovation and its not that easy to reverse engineer.

 

[Avalonia]

China's brains are drained by U.S. ,and only normal researchers left in China whose output copies & dumbs.

 

[Pakchina]

In July, as an all weather friend delegate, I had the chance to visit ZTE R&D Centre and ZTE call centre in Shenzhen. What I saw was really amazing. The latest technology, communication equipment, Go Ta phone equipment etc are being tested. I had also visited ZTE University Centre in Shenzhen and Shanghai. It was there that I learned about Internet of the things, smart technology, smart logistics and Cloud computing. ZTE has the possibility to expand worldwide, unfortunately, the US and other jealous racists anti-China are doing their best to prevent China and its companies to develop. That's the reality. Anyway, I know the capacity of China and the Chinese. I have total confidence on China. I say thank you China for permitting me, an ordinary person, to visit one of their best companies.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

China's brains are drained by U.S. ,and only normal researchers left in China whose output copies & dumbs.

America's brain drain: 6.3 MILLION U.S. citizens now live and work overseas (no wonder the economy's on its knees)

-Number of Americans aged 25-34 living abroad increased from 1% to 5.1% in two years

-40% of Americans aged 18-24 express interest in working abroad, up 15% from 2009

-State Department: 6.3m Americans now work abroad

Read more: Brain drain in reverse: 6.3 MILLION Americans and counting live and work overseas | Mail Online

This was 1 year ago, I'm sure the numbers are higher now.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

America's Brain Drain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4x0_WXlC1Y

 

[Methu_Xie]

stop trolling. indians are also progressing . both china and india can progress. it does not have to be one or the other. the world is big enough for both.

Didn't you see , who likes to envy us firstly in anywhere?did you?
Yes!The Indian is!However,we even don't care about the position of India(both geography and politic)

 

[Methu_Xie]

China's brains are drained by U.S. ,and only normal researchers left in China whose output copies & dumbs.

Are these achievements of China is done by The Great Republic of South Korea?Oh my god!There are more and more South Korean is inbursting China because they can't pay for meat and vegetables,oh my god,these hungry guys even are makinng the price of meat up to a new height.

 

[Solomon2]

I'm sure China will at some point soon become the world's hottest place for innovation. But I'm absolutely sure it won't last long. Probably less than two decades, maybe not even one. The reasons are cultural: once a Chinese is on top of an organization or industry he or she tends to stifle innovation from below and suppress innovation from outside. Followers (usually also Chinese) are promoted instead. Traditional practices of the boss become the rule. Everything becomes fossilized and the organization goes downhill, unable to compete, and the boss is blind as to the reason why.

This pattern applies to politics, businesses, civil and military bureaucracy, and academia.

 

[abuhaif]

'Hotbed of Innovation'? More like 'Hotbed of Imitation'. China copies, it doesn't invent, therefore it will always be at least a step behind the people they copy from.

 

[Solomon2]

'Hotbed of Innovation'? More like 'Hotbed of Imitation'. China copies, it doesn't invent, therefore it will always be at least a step behind the people they copy from.

Currently the Ricardian advantage is that China be an imitator, not an innovator, but Chinese CAN innovate. Whether they can promote and maintain innovation will be the issue. The disadvantage of being the world's oldest civilization is that the distinction comes with a lot of cultural baggage.

 

[rcrmj]

'Hotbed of Innovation'? More like 'Hotbed of Imitation'. China copies, it doesn't invent, therefore it will always be at least a step behind the people they copy from.

so you are trying to ignore all the professional statistics shown from the sources``and rather believe western propaganda to stereotype Chinese? you know to us and most people you are extreemly ignorant regarding things that you believe how China it is?

China's brains are drained by U.S. ,and only normal researchers left in China whose output copies & dumbs.

do you know most korean patents were done in the U.S, so the brain drain is more appropriate to Koreans

 

[cirr]

When China was inventing some of the fairer skinned were still living in caves。

Now China is starting to invent again after a short 200 years in its long history，the whites are worried to death for fear of losing their control of the world。

 

[abuhaif]

Inside the Chinese Boom in Corporate Espionage
By Michael Riley and Ashlee Vance on March 15, 2012


Last June, three men squeezed inside a wind turbine in China’s Gobi Desert. They were employees of American Superconductor Corp. (AMSC), a Devens (Mass.)-based maker of computer systems that serve as the electronic brains of wind turbines. From time to time, AMSC workers are required to head out to a wind farm in some desolate location—that’s where the wind usually is—to check on the equipment, do maintenance, make repairs, and keep the customers happy.

On this occasion, the AMSC technicians were investigating a malfunction. They entered the cylindrical main shaft of the turbine, harnessed themselves to a ladder, and climbed 230 feet in darkness up to the nacelle, an overpacked compartment that holds the machinery used to convert the rotation of the blades into electricity. AMSC had been using the turbine, manufactured by the company’s largest customer, China’s Sinovel Wind Group, to test a new version of its control system software. The software was designed to disable the turbine several weeks earlier, at the end of the testing period. But for some reason, this turbine ignored the system’s shutdown command and the blades kept right on spinning.

The AMSC technicians tapped into the turbine’s computer to get to the bottom of the glitch. The problem wasn’t immediately clear, so the technicians made a copy of the control system’s software and sent it to the company’s research center in Klagenfurt, Austria, which produced some startling findings. The Sinovel turbine appeared to be running a stolen version of AMSC’s software. Worse, the software revealed that Sinovel had complete access to AMSC’s proprietary source code. In short, Sinovel didn’t really need AMSC anymore.

Three days after that expedition in the Gobi, Daniel McGahn, AMSC’s chief executive officer, got the news on his cell phone while he was traveling in Russia. Hired in 2006, McGahn helped revamp the then-floundering company by focusing it on two things: China and wind power. Those bets paid off for a while, as Sinovel bought more and more turbine controllers from AMSC. Then in March 2011, Sinovel abruptly and inexplicably began turning away AMSC’s shipments at its enormous turbine assembly factory in Liaoning province.

On April 5, AMSC had no choice but to announce that Sinovel—now its biggest customer, accounting for more than two-thirds of the company’s $315 million in revenue in 2010—had stopped making purchases. Investors fled, erasing 40 percent of AMSC’s value in a single day and 84 percent of it by September. The company’s stock chart looks like the EKG of a person rushing toward white light.

On June 15, standing in a St. Petersburg office tower, McGahn listened to the report from the Austrian team for 30 minutes and felt the blood drain from his face. He had been trying for months to save the relationship with Sinovel and was making almost no progress. By the time he ended the call from his Austrian team, he knew why.

What McGahn says happened to AMSC may be incredibly brazen, but it’s hardly exceptional. There have been a large number of corporate spying cases involving China recently, and they are coming to light as President Barack Obama and the U.S., along with Japan and the European Union, have filed a formal complaint to the World Trade Organization over China’s unfair trading practices. The complaint includes the hoarding of rare earths, the metals required for the manufacture of other green energy technologies such as batteries for hybrid vehicles.

In November, 14 U.S. intelligence agencies issued a report describing a far-reaching industrial espionage campaign by Chinese spy agencies. This campaign has been in the works for years and targets a swath of industries: biotechnology, telecommunications, and nanotechnology, as well as clean energy. One U.S. metallurgical company lost technology to China’s hackers that cost $1 billion and 20 years to develop, U.S. officials said last year. An Apple (AAPL) global supply manager pled guilty in 2011 to funneling designs and pricing information to China and other countries; a Ford Motor (F) engineer was sentenced to six years in prison in 2010 for trying to smuggle 4,000 documents, including design specs, to China. Earlier this month, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told Congress that China-based hackers had gained access to sensitive files stored on computers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

As the toll adds up, political leaders and intelligence officials in the U.S. and Europe are coming to a disturbing conclusion. “It’s the greatest transfer of wealth in history,” General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, said at a security conference at New York’s Fordham University in January.

In other espionage cases, such as those involving Google (GOOG), Lockheed Martin (LMT), and DuPont (DD), thieves did a far better job of covering their digital tracks. Sinovel, however, was caught red-handed. AMSC has presented to law enforcement officials in Austria and China computer logs and messages that show Sinovel courting one of the U.S. company’s employees and paying him to aid in the code heist. “It’s a red-hot smoking gun example,” says John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Democratic senator from AMSC’s home state of Massachusetts. “If this is the way the Chinese choose to do business, it’s going to be very contentious and tough sledding ahead for this relationship.”

U.S. politicians and corporate executives have groused about China’s intellectual property abuses for years, to little effect. China often promises to take a harder stance against such thefts but rarely backs up the words with actions. For example, Chinese officials have promised to crack down on the theft of Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows operating system; the company says it’s still seeing mass downloads of its software that were never paid for. McGahn, though, has taken a highly unusual step. He decided to fight back—in China.

AMSC has filed four civil complaints against Sinovel in Chinese courts—where Sinovel has a steep home-field advantage—seeking $1.2 billion in damages. Sinovel has filed its own countersuits claiming that AMSC owes it $207 million for problems including defective equipment. Sinovel declined to make its chairman available for interview or to comment for this story. And because Chinese courts do not make legal documents available to the public, it was not possible to read Sinovel’s counterclaims. “How China responds to this is going to be central to how they respond to other issues of concern between us,” Kerry says.

AMSC was founded in 1987 by four professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The idea was to develop power transmission lines made from cooled superconductive material, which dramatically reduces energy loss. At the time, superconductivity looked like science’s latest gift to big business. But the technology has never quite lived up to those early hopes, and AMSC’s business wallowed in the red for decades. In 2006 the company hired McGahn, a gregarious executive with a masters degree in marine engineering from MIT, as a vice president charged with exploring new businesses.

As McGahn surveyed AMSC’s technology, he focused on the company’s research into wind-turbine control systems. A modern 1.5-Megawatt turbine is the equivalent of a 160-ton, high-performance pinwheel. Each gets stuffed with as much as $200,000 worth of electronics, including a power converter and what’s called a programmable logic controller, an industrial computer the size of a couple of cigarette cartons. These devices are used to do everything from filling up the bottles in a Budweiser (BUD) brewery to controlling valves in oil pipelines. In the case of turbines, they can rapidly adjust the yaw and pitch of blades, among other functions. McGahn sensed an opportunity to take this technology and capitalize on China’s efforts to harvest energy from the wind.

The same year AMSC hired McGahn, China passed a clean energy law calling for the creation of seven 10,000-Mw wind farms in strategic zones throughout the country, including Gansu, Zhejiang, Inner Mongolia, and Jiangsu provinces. The law made China the hottest wind market in the world. In 2009, according to a U.S. wind industry report, a new turbine was going up in China every hour. By 2020 just one of those wind farms may produce as much power as 10 nuclear power reactors.

AMSC began packaging the electronic components and selling them to China’s small but growing domestic manufacturers, which had plenty of capital and cheap labor to make the turbines’ steel skeletons but lacked the sophisticated gadgetry to run them. The arrangement was working the way it was supposed to: China would turn out the commodity hardware—the turbines—and an American company would retain control of the high-margin intellectual capital end of the business. “We always saw it as a symbiotic relationship of having China’s low manufacturing cost coupled with Western technology,” McGahn says. “We would grow as they grew.”....

Inside the Chinese Boom in Corporate Espionage - Businessweek

This is a very long article. I won't post all of it but there is the link if you'd like to check it out. To sum it all up in one sentence, China steals much of what it 'invents'.

When China was inventing some of the fairer skinned were still living in caves。

Now China is starting to invent again after a short 200 years in its long history，the whites are worried to death for fear of losing their control of the world。

Oh boy, are we going back to the 'gunpowder thing' again ? Oh, and spaghetti, too.

 

[cirr]

Don't think the author knows much about China or how China works，but still a good read for those who know bugger all about China：


November 28th, 2012

What we get wrong about China

By Bhaskar Chakravorti, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Bhaskar Chakravorti is senior associate dean of International Business and Finance and founding executive director of the Institute for Business in the Global Context at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.The views expressed are the author's own.


We now know who will be leading the two most important nations for the global economy – for the next four years in the United States’ case, and for a decade in China’s. By the time President Obama is ready to leave office, China will have passed the U.S. in GDP terms, at least according to a report by the OECD. But with GDP no longer Chinese leaders’ top concern, the country has its sights set on catching up with the U.S. in another area – innovation.

On a recent to visit to speak at the World Economic Forum's Summer Davos in Tianjin, I was struck by the sense of urgency among Chinese leaders to close the gap when it comes to innovation. It was clear to me that it is time for the U.S. to pay close attention, because urgency in China is generally followed by execution.

Unfortunately, America has worked itself up over the wrong issues as far as “competitiveness” is concerned: we bemoan the fact that China has taken our jobs (and 42 percent of Americans believe that China is already the world’s largest economy, a Pew survey suggested). But those worried about the country’s future would be better served focusing on U.S. competitiveness in innovation, something that has the potential to put this country’s growth back on track.

The problem is that there is a general (and misplaced) belief that China will always be a loser, that it can only imitate, not innovate. Critics argue that its society is too top-down and that American innovation will always be buoyed by Silicon Valley.

More from CNN: U.S. needs an infrastructure bank

But the reality is that it is naïve to believe China cannot narrow the gap in innovation, and the second Obama administration would do well to consider that America could actually learn a thing or two from across the Pacific. And it could start by grappling with some widely held myths:

1. There is no innovation in China, only piracy and imitation.

Most innovation begins with imitation; America got its start by imitating inventions from the Old World. Meanwhile, many Chinese "imitations," such as Alibaba, Tencent or Sina Weibo, have moved far beyond being mere copies of their U.S. counterparts. Each is solving problems uniquely relevant to Chinese businesses and consumers, something that could create platforms for innovations that are propelled into global markets.

2. The Chinese approach to innovation is too top-down and state-led – real innovation only comes from the bottom-up.

The Chinese state is committed to bringing China to the ranks of the innovative nations by 2020. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs might shudder at this top-down approach. Yet consider, for example, where the American entrepreneur would be if the U.S. government had not funded the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that gave birth to the Internet. The state must play a role in investing in foundational innovations, such as the Internet and mobile technologies. Once these foundations are laid, then a competitive bottom-up ecosystem will encourage creative destruction. But sadly, U.S. government investment in such foundational innovations has been on a steady decline.

3. Intellectual property rights protection in China is too weak to encourage innovation.

China's weaker intellectual property protection could, arguably, make it easier to foster a climate conducive to open innovation. Of course, a balance needs to be struck between open access to intellectual property and protecting it – with no protection, innovation will stall, because investors need returns on their investment. Unfortunately, in the U.S., intellectual property protections block innovation just as much as they promote it.

4. In a globalized economy, sustaining innovation requires investment in international markets; China's brand and soft power abroad is weak and dated.

Despite several unresolved issues such as territorial disputes and balance of trade, China's influence in the world's fast-growing regions, including Africa, Latin America and East Asia, is growing more rapidly than that of the United States. When Chinese innovations look for inputs or consumers and they turn to these markets, they are likely to have as many opportunities as well-known U.S. brands – perhaps even a better chance. Indeed, when it comes to ties with Africa and Latin America, China is often one step ahead of the U.S.

5. China's education model emphasizes rote learning; innovation can only flourish in environments that encourage exploration, critical thinking and a broad education in the liberal arts tradition.

The danger with the Chinese approach is that if you don’t expose students to other disciplines and encourage critical thinking, they may lack the breadth to blossom into creative problem-solvers and risk takers. However, the U.S. system has some severe deficits of its own. A recent U.S. Department of Commerce report, for example, highlights a growing gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Notably, immigrants are the ones filling the education gap – half the start-ups in Silicon Valley were founded by immigrants.

Sure, the Chinese model of innovation needs plenty of work, but in many ways China is also learning from the U.S. and following in our early footsteps. As China moves up the curve and adds the uniqueness of its own experience and approach, it may create a new hybrid model that has lessons for other nations, including the United States.

Remember, it’s true that the global positioning system is a product of the U.S. Department of Defense. But the Chinese were the ones who gave us the compass in the first place.

Chakravorti is author of “The Slow Pace of Fast Change: Bringing Innovations to Market in a Connected World.”

What we get wrong about China – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

 

[abuhaif]

...Remember, it’s true that the global positioning system is a product of the U.S. Department of Defense. But the Chinese were the ones who gave us the compass in the first place...

OH JEEZ !!! Let's not forget about the firecracker, too. If not for that, we'd never have a nuclear bomb. HAHAHAHAHA !!!