Reverse Engineering Is Extremely Difficult

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Sir, for the record, you can patent for a chair.



And no, I'm not saying that designing is, but relatively, much easier than chip fabrication. AMD had 64 bit designs ready WAY before the plants could make the compatible hardware. Heck, they even have 128 bits ready now. How many arduous years of overtures will it take for STM to procure the lines capable of producing those?

I recently just heard of a scandel in Shanghai's Fudan university of their capabilities to produce x86 80486-comparable chips. Guess what? It turned out to be a 486 with the intel tradmark scrubbed off! Evidently, China does not have the capacity to produce 486 equivalent chips or ... err... even LCD boards, which you guys produce using patented Korean technology.

Is it ignorance or stupidity that you suffer from???

I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Longson (aka Godson) has been producing chips since at least 2003. The latest series has already been successfully incorporated into a PETAFLOP SUPERCOMPUTER. It runs at 2~4 watts per core..... now compare this to Intel or AMD which runs typically at 30-50 watts per core!!!

It is obvious besides basing on a similar instruction set (e.g. MIPS / x86) it is quite a unique and different chip design.

 

[Martian2]

Sir, for the record, you can patent for a chair.

And no, I'm not saying that designing is, but relatively, much easier than chip fabrication. AMD had 64 bit designs ready WAY before the plants could make the compatible hardware. Heck, they even have 128 bits ready now. How many arduous years of overtures will it take for STM to procure the lines capable of producing those?

I recently just heard of a scandel in Shanghai's Fudan university of their capabilities to produce x86 80486-comparable chips. Guess what? It turned out to be a 486 with the intel tradmark scrubbed off! Evidently, China does not have the capacity to produce 486 equivalent chips or ... err... even LCD boards, which you guys produce using patented Korean technology.

I hope that we don't go too far off the topic of reverse-engineering is reinvention and it's difficult to do. However, I want to address your point regarding "LCD boards." Do you mean liquid-crystal-displays (i.e. LCDs)? If so, I have previously written a relevant article on Korean infringement of Taiwanese patents that you might want to read.

"Taiwan's AU Optronics wins big patent dispute against Korean LG Display

Foolish Korean electronics giant LG Display falsely accused Taiwan's AU Optronics of infringing four key patents in the manufacture of liquid crystal displays (i.e. LCDs). An U.S. court found that the opposite was true. Korean LG Display had infringed the four key patents that belonged to Taiwan's AU Optronics.

Total U.S. patents granted by the U.S.P.T.O. (i.e. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) to Taiwan is a cumulative 94,579 patents. For South Korea, it is only 72,332 patents (See Patents By Country, State, and Year - All Patent Types (December 2009)). South Korean giants should think twice before they make false accusations against Taiwanese companies.

LG Dispay LCDs May Be Banned Worldwide

"LG Dispay LCDs May Be Banned Worldwide
6:50 PM - May 3, 2010 - By Kevin Parrish - Source : Tom's Guide US

A patent infringement case may block the sale of certain LG LCD panels.

ZoomComputerworld reports that Taiwan-based AU Optronics (AUO) is trying to halt the import and sale of LG Display LCD panels across the globe. If an injunction is successful, this could ultimately hurt consumers and their choice of LCD options, as LG currently commands over a quarter of the LCD panel market.

Over the past three and a half years, LG and AUO have been in a legal scuffle in regards to patents covering material and processes used in making LCD panels. Friday marked the end of the long, multifaceted battle, with AUO emerging as the winner based on LG's inability to prove that the rival company infringed on its LCD patents.

But in February AUO filed a counter-suit and won. Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. said in a 77-page verdict that AUO provided enough evidence to show that LG literally infringes on patents asserted by AUO--LG was unable to prove otherwise. Now AUO is warning consumers not to purchase "unauthorized infringing products from LG for sale or use in the U.S. without the need for further court action."

Computerworld said that LG may file further appeals or motions in its case, or it may reach a settlement with AUO that may prevent the possible ban of LG-based LCD screens. As it stands now, over the last six months, LG has shipped more LCD screens across the globe than any other LCD manufacturer. A cease in that kind of distribution could however allow lesser-known brands to step forward and fill the void.""

 

[ao333]

Is it ignorance or stupidity that you suffer from???

I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Longson (aka Godson) has been producing chips since at least 2003. The latest series has already been successfully incorporated into a PETAFLOP SUPERCOMPUTER. It runs at 2~4 watts per core..... now compare this to Intel or AMD which runs typically at 30-50 watts per core!!!

It is obvious besides basing on a similar instruction set (e.g. MIPS / x86) it is quite a unique and different chip design.

By producing, you mean designing?

I hope that we don't go too far off the topic of reverse-engineering is reinvention and it's difficult to do. However, I want to address your point regarding "LCD boards." Do you mean liquid-crystal-displays (i.e. LCDs)? If so, I have previously written a relevant article on Korean infringement of Taiwanese patents that you might want to read.

"Taiwan's AU Optronics wins big patent dispute against Korean LG Display

Foolish Korean electronics giant LG Display falsely accused Taiwan's AU Optronics of infringing four key patents in the manufacture of liquid crystal displays (i.e. LCDs). An U.S. court found that the opposite was true. Korean LG Display had infringed the four key patents that belonged to Taiwan's AU Optronics.

Total U.S. patents granted by the U.S.P.T.O. (i.e. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) to Taiwan is a cumulative 94,579 patents. For South Korea, it is only 72,332 patents (See Patents By Country, State, and Year - All Patent Types (December 2009)). South Korean giants should think twice before they make false accusations against Taiwanese companies.

LG Dispay LCDs May Be Banned Worldwide

"LG Dispay LCDs May Be Banned Worldwide
6:50 PM - May 3, 2010 - By Kevin Parrish - Source : Tom's Guide US

A patent infringement case may block the sale of certain LG LCD panels.

ZoomComputerworld reports that Taiwan-based AU Optronics (AUO) is trying to halt the import and sale of LG Display LCD panels across the globe. If an injunction is successful, this could ultimately hurt consumers and their choice of LCD options, as LG currently commands over a quarter of the LCD panel market.

Over the past three and a half years, LG and AUO have been in a legal scuffle in regards to patents covering material and processes used in making LCD panels. Friday marked the end of the long, multifaceted battle, with AUO emerging as the winner based on LG's inability to prove that the rival company infringed on its LCD patents.

But in February AUO filed a counter-suit and won. Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. said in a 77-page verdict that AUO provided enough evidence to show that LG literally infringes on patents asserted by AUO--LG was unable to prove otherwise. Now AUO is warning consumers not to purchase "unauthorized infringing products from LG for sale or use in the U.S. without the need for further court action."

Computerworld said that LG may file further appeals or motions in its case, or it may reach a settlement with AUO that may prevent the possible ban of LG-based LCD screens. As it stands now, over the last six months, LG has shipped more LCD screens across the globe than any other LCD manufacturer. A cease in that kind of distribution could however allow lesser-known brands to step forward and fill the void.""

What's that gotta do with China not being able to produce LCD boards? You guys merely assemble them and mould the plastic casing. Even the display shieldings are made in Korea.

 

[Martian2]

Sir, for the record, you can patent for a chair.

I guess we'll have to disagree. I think patents are important and Taiwan is making countless billions of dollars from her patents. However, if you think patents aren't important then that's your perogative.

Here is an article that I wrote earlier about Taiwan's corporate profitability.

"We interrupt this thread with a message from our corporate Taiwanese sponsors. Ha ha. When I have more time, I might start a tradition of compiling quarterly profits from some of Taiwan's companies.

Here are the first quarter (i.e. January-March 2010) net profits in U.S. dollars:

Taiwan Semiconductor: $1.1 billion

Hon Hai Precision: $927 million (fourth quarter; waiting for Q1 2010)

Compal: $272 million

AU Optronics: $233 million

Asustek: $176 million (fourth quarter)

Acer: $105 million

[Note: If I have time, I will add more companies to the list in the future. By the way, to roughly approximate the yearly profit, multiply the quarterly profit by four. Just eyeballing it, both TSMC and Hon Hai will each have net profits of about $4 billion this year. Compal and AU will each make about $1 billion. Asustek (or Asus) will make about $3/4 billion. Poor Acer will only make almost $1/2 billion.]

TSMC posts strong Q1 profit, more gains ahead | Reuters
"TAIPEI, April 27 (Reuters) - TSMC (2330.TW), the world's biggest contract chip maker, posted a sharp rise in quarterly profit that beat market expectations, as the company sold more chips for new computers and high-tech gadgets.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC) (TSM.N) booked a net profit of T$33.66 billion ($1.1 billion) in January-March, compared with T$1.56 billion a year ago, the company said in a statement on Tuesday."

Taiwan's Hon Hai Q4 profit triples; Q1 awaited | Reuters
"Taiwan's Hon Hai Q4 profit triples; Q1 awaited
Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:30pm EDT

TAIPEI, April 27 (Reuters) - Hon Hai Precision Industry (2317.TW), Taiwan's largest electronics parts maker, saw its fourth quarter profit more than triple, pointing to a strong rebound in global tech demand.

Fourth-quarter profit reached T$29 billion ($927 million), up from T$9.3 billion in the same quarter a year earlier, according to Reuters calculations on Tuesday."

Taiwan's Compal reports surge in Q1 profit | Reuters
"Taiwan's Compal reports surge in Q1 profit

TAIPEI, April 28 (Reuters) - Taiwan's Compal Electronics (2324.TW), the world's No. 2 contract laptop maker, posted a surge in quarterly earnings on Wednesday amid rising demand for computers globally.

Compal earned a net profit of T$8.52 billion ($272 million) in January-March, compared with T$2.8 billion the same period a year ago, the company said."

UPDATE 1-Taiwan AU's turnaround fans optimism over LCD demand | Reuters
"TAIPEI, April 22 (Reuters) - AU Optronics Corp (2409.TW), Taiwan's No.2 LCD maker, returned to profit in the first quarter after strong demand boosted sales and prices of its displays for computers and flat-screen TVs.
...
A supplier to top brands such as Dell Inc (DELL.O), Hewlett-Packard Co (HPQ.N) and Sony Corp (6758.T), AU Optronics booked a net profit of T$7.3 billion ($233 million) in January-March."

Asus Beats Own Profit Forecasts | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
"Asus Beats Own Profit Forecasts

TAIPEI, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Netbook PC pioneer Asustek reported market-beating fourth-quarter net earnings on Monday as demand for its low-cost computers picked up, foreshadowing similarly strong results from its peers.

It made a net profit of T$5.659 billion ($176 million) in the fourth quarter of last year, it said in a statement on Monday, better than market expectations for a T$5.06 billion net profit and the T$2.798 billion in the same period a year ago."

Taiwan's Acer posts 62 pct rise in Q1 profit yr/yr | Reuters
" TAIPEI, April 29 (Reuters) - Acer Inc (2353.TW), the world's No.2 PC vendor, reported slightly better-than-expected quarterly earnings on Thursday, amid rising PC demand globally.

Acer booked a net profit of T$3.29 billion ($105 million) in January-March, compared with T$2.03 billion the same period a year earlier and T$3.52 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009.""

 

[ao333]

I guess we'll have to disagree. I think patents are important and Taiwan is making countless billions of dollars from her patents. However, if you think patents aren't important then that's your perogative.

Here is an article that I wrote earlier about Taiwan's corporate profitability.

"We interrupt this thread with a message from our corporate Taiwanese sponsors. Ha ha. When I have more time, I might start a tradition of compiling quarterly profits from some of Taiwan's companies.

Here are the first quarter (i.e. January-March 2010) net profits in U.S. dollars:

Taiwan Semiconductor: $1.1 billion

Hon Hai Precision: $927 million (fourth quarter; waiting for Q1 2010)

Compal: $272 million

AU Optronics: $233 million

Asustek: $176 million (fourth quarter)

Acer: $105 million

[Note: If I have time, I will add more companies to the list in the future. By the way, to roughly approximate the yearly profit, multiply the quarterly profit by four. Just eyeballing it, both TSMC and Hon Hai will each have net profits of about $4 billion this year. Compal and AU will each make about $1 billion. Asustek (or Asus) will make about $3/4 billion. Poor Acer will only make almost $1/2 billion.]

TSMC posts strong Q1 profit, more gains ahead | Reuters
"TAIPEI, April 27 (Reuters) - TSMC (2330.TW), the world's biggest contract chip maker, posted a sharp rise in quarterly profit that beat market expectations, as the company sold more chips for new computers and high-tech gadgets.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC) (TSM.N) booked a net profit of T$33.66 billion ($1.1 billion) in January-March, compared with T$1.56 billion a year ago, the company said in a statement on Tuesday."

Taiwan's Hon Hai Q4 profit triples; Q1 awaited | Reuters
"Taiwan's Hon Hai Q4 profit triples; Q1 awaited
Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:30pm EDT

TAIPEI, April 27 (Reuters) - Hon Hai Precision Industry (2317.TW), Taiwan's largest electronics parts maker, saw its fourth quarter profit more than triple, pointing to a strong rebound in global tech demand.

Fourth-quarter profit reached T$29 billion ($927 million), up from T$9.3 billion in the same quarter a year earlier, according to Reuters calculations on Tuesday."

Taiwan's Compal reports surge in Q1 profit | Reuters
"Taiwan's Compal reports surge in Q1 profit

TAIPEI, April 28 (Reuters) - Taiwan's Compal Electronics (2324.TW), the world's No. 2 contract laptop maker, posted a surge in quarterly earnings on Wednesday amid rising demand for computers globally.

Compal earned a net profit of T$8.52 billion ($272 million) in January-March, compared with T$2.8 billion the same period a year ago, the company said."

UPDATE 1-Taiwan AU's turnaround fans optimism over LCD demand | Reuters
"TAIPEI, April 22 (Reuters) - AU Optronics Corp (2409.TW), Taiwan's No.2 LCD maker, returned to profit in the first quarter after strong demand boosted sales and prices of its displays for computers and flat-screen TVs.
...
A supplier to top brands such as Dell Inc (DELL.O), Hewlett-Packard Co (HPQ.N) and Sony Corp (6758.T), AU Optronics booked a net profit of T$7.3 billion ($233 million) in January-March."

Asus Beats Own Profit Forecasts | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
"Asus Beats Own Profit Forecasts

TAIPEI, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Netbook PC pioneer Asustek reported market-beating fourth-quarter net earnings on Monday as demand for its low-cost computers picked up, foreshadowing similarly strong results from its peers.

It made a net profit of T$5.659 billion ($176 million) in the fourth quarter of last year, it said in a statement on Monday, better than market expectations for a T$5.06 billion net profit and the T$2.798 billion in the same period a year ago."

Taiwan's Acer posts 62 pct rise in Q1 profit yr/yr | Reuters
" TAIPEI, April 29 (Reuters) - Acer Inc (2353.TW), the world's No.2 PC vendor, reported slightly better-than-expected quarterly earnings on Thursday, amid rising PC demand globally.

Acer booked a net profit of T$3.29 billion ($105 million) in January-March, compared with T$2.03 billion the same period a year earlier and T$3.52 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009.""

No, I'm saying that there can be huge differences between patents. Simply, stating the # doesn't make a country high-tech. Oh ****, you're getting paid for this; I'm not. Good bye.

 

[duhastmish]

reverse engineering is not bad . only problem is by the time u reverse engineer something , somebody invent the nest generation product and you are just making - obsolete technology.

in chinese case - they dont have much choice nobody like to sell them new age equipment so they try n reverse engineer the old technology.

it will be better option is to just buy the product and use the brain of your coutnry to invent something which can take u atleast close to other.

more over this also gives a bad tag of copy and cheating , which keep them away from new age techonology.

cheers

 

[Martian2]

The most interesting and controversial debate regarding China's reverse-engineering was the development of China's W-88 class miniaturized thermonuclear warhead. The U.S. claims that China appropriated the designs and reverse-engineered the W-88 warhead. China says that isn't true.

China says that this is a case of convergent engineering. For example, an airplane must have two wings to provide lift and an engine to provide thrust in the rear. Another example of convergent engineering is that all rockets are long and thin. In other words, form must follow function. There is only a very limited way to create a massive thermonuclear explosion using a compact warhead.

Here is the crux of the problem. "U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs." The Chinese nuclear tests data are "similar," but not identical to U.S. nuclear tests on the W-88.



W88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kiloton (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999 the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "The most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead."[1]

The Trident II SLBM can be armed with up to 8 W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or 8 W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4), but it is limited to 4 warheads under SORT."

NTI: Research Library: Country Profiles: China

"...According to the Cox Committee Report, suspicion of China's nuclear espionage started after the U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs. This similarity, combined with other information derived from classified sources, led the Cox Committee to claim that China had stolen several bomb designs, including the U.S.' most advanced W-88 design and a design for an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). Yet, the Cox Report has been severely criticized by both experts and officials in the United States as a political document that has several technical inaccuracies."

 

[Srinivas]

Reverse Engineering is not that tough when compared innovation

 

[Speeder 2]

The ones sneer at reverse engineering are bull**ks!

I give you a lighter, can you reverse engineer it yourself, and build it from scratchyourself ?

I then given you and CD player, can you reverse engineer it yourself, and build it from scratch yourself ?

then I give you a decade-old fashion computer...

then I give you a missile... a warship... a F-22A raptor... a latest computer chip... can you reverse engineer them yourself?

The answer to all above questions are:

for a few people/nations, yes; for most others, no.


Reverse engineering is the ONLY way up. The ones disagree with it are patently delusional !


Pineering works are the most difficult ones. Hence in the entire history of mankind, only top 2 or 3 most developed econmies at a time have had industrial capacities and overall knowledge base to do pioneering work.

That said, it doesn't mean other lesser countries have not done something, or can not do any original works, yet the scope and numbers of their original works have been very limited compared with the top 3 countries.


China was THE #1 economy in the pre-modern world, far ahead of the rest of the world. henc e there's no surprise that the bulk of pre-modern inventions of mankind came from China. Most of the rest world tried to copy /reverse engineer. FACT!

Europeans was cataching up from 15th century onwards...started to surpass China in 17th/18th century...and they started the lead inventing, traded-marked by industrial revolution in England. Hence Britain was the #1 in 19th century and was responsable for the bulk of world inventions for the periord. Most of the rest world tried to copy /reverse engineer. FACT!


Pre-WWII Germany was the #1 industrial power (other eminent powers were japan, Britain, France) . Hence German ( till 3rd Reich) inventions were largely leading the world. Most of the rest world tried to copy /reverse engineer. FACT!

Post WWII, USA came along being the #1 ( so were some fommer Soviet millitary tech) .... Hence US techonolgies were largely leading the world. Only several nations such as Germany, Japan, Former Sov, UK were capable doing the original works due to their residual strength of their previous industrial endeavour. Most of the rest world tried to copy /reverse engineer. FACT!


Note that in entire history only a handful of people CAN do reverse engineering to catch up and then lead. They are mainly Chinese (and other related northeast Asians), Europeans (Germans, francos, Scandinavians including Russians, ancient Greeks/Romans), some ancientArabs, some ancient Hindus.

There is NO USA and so called Amercians, Canadians. Without Europeans and East Asians, the North America would be a thrid world cesspol!

What about 21th century? Use your imagination... but sneering at reverse engineering is the most stupid thing one can come up with, as for a non-leading economy ( measured by sophistication especially, not only by size) reverse engineering is the only way to make to the top 3.

The difference is that only several countries in history have demostrated capabilities to successfully do reverse engineering, whereasa others simply can´t even though they dream that they could, hence will almost always remain at the bottom of the rankings.

 

[jagjitnatt]

Use your imagination... but sneering at reverse engineering is the most stupid thing one can come up with, as for a non-leading economy ( measured by sophistication especially, not only by size) reverse engineering is the only way to make to the top 3.

I understand what you are trying to say. But do you think that economy can be sustained for long term? At one point of time you'd run out of things to reverse engineer, then what would you do?

Reverse engineering is a good way in the short term, but its high time, China starts thinking about innovation and invention.

US is the world leader because it innovates. By the time you copy F22, they would have moved on to space weapons. Innovation does pay in the long run.

If you ask me to make a lighter, or a computer, it will take me some time to understand how it works and I can make it after that.

But if I ask you to make a teleportation machine or CO2 to C + O2 converter, what would you do then? Would you be able to make it?

No. It just won't be possible.

 

[Martian2]

Let's take a look at the scorecard. The Yu-6 is clearly a reverse-engineered Mark-48 class torpedo.

It is unclear whether the Type 052C Aegis-class destroyer is partially-based on reverse-engineering or solely-based on indigenous research and development. The Type 052C phased-array is curved and not flat like the American Aegis. There are significant differences to make a strong case that it is convergent engineering.

Similarly, the American suspicion of the Chinese W-88 class thermonuclear warhead is only a mere suspicion. The 1992-1996 American seismograph data on Chinese nuclear tests are "similar," but not identical to American W-88 nuclear test data.

You must be wondering, how about showing us a world-class indigenous Chinese weapon that is clearly indigenous innovation? I'm glad you asked.


Type 99 Main Battle Tank

Type 99 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Type 99, also known as ZTZ-99 and WZ-123, developed from the Type 98G (in turn, a development of the Type 98), is a third generation main battle tank (MBT) fielded by the Chinese People's Liberation Army. It is made to compete with other modern tanks. Although not expected to be acquired in large numbers due to its high cost compared to the more economical Type 96, it is currently the most advanced MBT fielded by China. The ZTZ99 MBT is considered one of the 12 best tanks in the world,[4] and is a successor to the Type 98 G tank manufactured for the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
...
Type 99

The basic variant of the Type 99 series. The latest variant that is in full service is the Type 99A2 with a 1,500-hp water cooled diesel engine and getting re-designed at some parts. The newest in trial is the Type 99KM.

The Type 99A2 has increased armor on the turret. The self-defense laser module has been replaced by an active defensive module. The ZTZ-99A2 also installed ERA on the front and side turret. The tank hull will follow the MBT 2000 configuration instead of the previously used hull.
...
Type 99A1

The Type 99A1 is the latest version in service of the PLA while the the more advanced variant the Type 99A2 is still in various trials and is not expected to enter service before the end of 2009. While the earlier Type 99 that entered service several years ago had additional armor packages on the original Type 98 turret and the chassis, the Type 99A1 has its turret top reshaped, having the hump on the turret's top removed by thickening it. This might be the result for changing the height of the turret itself to improve more protection or more space for the tank commander and gunner. Other distinct details are the armor packages on the front and at its sides, the ERA panels have been extended. The Type 99A1 might also have received further upgrades in terms of targeting computers etc.

Type 99A2

The much-improved Type 99 variant, with many major upgrades and improvements. Improvements are so significant that the A2 can almost be considered as a new tank. Some of the improvement and upgrades include a reaction improved aiming system, a digital battlefield information terminal, a newly designed arrow-shaped armor, a larger turret, an expanded tail chamber, an Active Protection System mounted on the turret with millimeter-wave radar, a new commander's periscope and an Integrated Propulsion System.[5]

Type 99KM

The newest and much-improved variant, with newer modular active protection system, JD-4 active laser defense system, more powerful engine, and more. It is also equipped with a 155 mm gun capable of firing next-generation kinetic rounds.[6]"

 

[Speeder 2]

I understand what you are trying to say. But do you think that economy can be sustained for long term? At one point of time you'd run out of things to reverse engineer, then what would you do?

Reverse engineering is a good way in the short term, but its high time, China starts thinking about innovation and invention.

US is the world leader because it innovates. By the time you copy F22, they would have moved on to space weapons. Innovation does pay in the long run.

If you ask me to make a lighter, or a computer, it will take me some time to understand how it works and I can make it after that.

But if I ask you to make a teleportation machine or CO2 to C + O2 converter, what would you do then? Would you be able to make it?

No. It just won't be possible.

No, it looks to me that you still DON´t understand the key of what I said.

Reverse engineering is the ONLYway ( in contrast to your `a good way`) .

The ONLY way, to catch up and surpass, got it?

Thus there´s no short term or long term. It will take as long as it´s required to reach the top level. Then, one can start innovating, not before.

 

[jagjitnatt]

No, it looks to me that you still DON´t understand the key of what I said.

Reverse engineering is the ONLYway ( in contrast to your `a good way`) .

The ONLY way, to catch up and surpass, got it?

Thus there´s no short term or long term. It will take as long as it´s required to reach the top level. Then, one can start innovating, not before.

Then my view is different from yours. I believe innovation is Science.

Innovation is what makes a person a scientist. No amount of reverse engg can induce the kind of knowledge required to create world class products. A person who believes in reverse engg can never go that extra mile to research and experiment. He'll be used to previous already available results.

This is what we learn as engineers, keep working those grey cells, till you understand, or get the solution.

 

[Martian2]

Are you hungry for more Chinese innovation? Here is another big one.

Is China seeking the ability to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles? - By Thomas G. Mahnken | Shadow Government

"China's satellite killer
Posted By Tom Mahnken Monday, March 22, 2010 - 11:49 AM



In January 2007, China conducted the first successful test of its ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) system, destroying a derelict Chinese weather satellite and producing tens of thousands of pieces of debris that will present a hazard to space navigation for years to come. The Bush administration reacted strongly to the test, as did space-faring nations across the globe, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and the European Union. The Chinese Foreign Ministry was caught flat-footed, first denying that the test had occurred and then, nearly two weeks later, issuing a bland statement.

In January 2010, China apparently conducted another successful test of its ASAT under the pretext of a ballistic missile defense experiment (even though the Defense Department's most recent report on Chinese military power does not discuss such a program). This time, the Chinese Foreign Ministry was ready, announcing not only that, "The test was defensive in nature and targeted at no country," but also helpfully noting that "The test would neither produce space debris in orbit nor pose a threat to the safety of orbiting spacecraft."

And this time, the Obama administration has bought the Chinese line. The administration characterizes the test as a "BMD" test, echoing rather than challenging the Chinese narrative. But was it?

Whether the test was actually part of a BMD program, a continuation of China's ASAT program, or both, has considerable importance to the United States, its allies, and its friends. Is China continuing to develop the ability to destroy the satellites upon which the United States and other space-faring nations depend for both military and civilian missions? Is China seeking the ability to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles, even as it decries American programs to do the same? Or both?

The Chinese "BMD" test deserves Congressional scrutiny. Does China possess a major ballistic missile defense program, or is it using such a program as a guise to continue to threaten U.S. satellites? And what has the Obama administration done to address these programs?

The Chinese also need to do more to shed light on their activities. If China is in fact developing a BMD system, then it should be willing to share its plans for deployment with the United States and the international community, much as the United States has. Against what threats is China planning? How large a defensive system will it deploy and when? Why, in Beijing's view, are Chinese defenses stabilizing and American defenses destabilizing?"

 

[Martian2]

What a demanding crowd! You want even more Chinese innovation? Here it comes.

"China's Advanced Sciences

Are you aware of the current Chinese advances in nanotechnology, drug delivery, quantum cryptography, material science, etc.?

Here is a sample of the cool products that might result from China's R&D.

Nanotechnology: Tom Mackenzie on China's giant step into nanotech | Technology | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/...echnology-china

BBC NEWS | Health | Nanoparticle lung threat blocked

'Nano-raspberries' for Steamy Windows

Polymers release insulin in response to glucose trigger

China develops world's first quantum cryptography network

New Super-bouyant Material: Life Preserver Might Float A Horse
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90316092837.htm"