Great post about how industrial espionage has fueled economic development globally for the past few centuries.
Brings to mind Bill Gates's response to Steve Jobs’ accusation that Microsoft stole from Apple by saying:
"Well, Steve, I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
Modern IP laws enforced by the WTO and WIPO were created to protect the IP of creators and companies. So we have a global framework that prioritizes protecting the IP of advanced countries over allowing developing countries to pirate/steal/ascertain for technology transfer.
My impression—backed up, I admit, by no research whatsoever—is that China does happen to be exceptional in the *degree* of state sponsorship and direction of its industrial espionage program, at least compared to other modern success stories like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. (If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested to hear why.)
The other thing I'd note is that it's not hard to find examples of bad behavior during the formative years of the US and UK. But of course that doesn't mean similar behavior today shouldn't be condemned. So I would have been interested to hear what you think the normative implications of this history are, if any.
Thanks David. Its not really useful in my opinion to see this in such normative terms. Developing countries need these technologies to grow and to bring their own economies out of poverty/low-level equilibriums. So, from a moral perspective, we could also argue that it is "bad" that advanced countries would want to gatekeep growth and keep other countries underdeveloped. Of course there are implications for individual entrepreneurs or inventors, who would be less incentivized to innovate without protections from stealing. But its not obvious to me that protecting innovation (for innovation sake) is better than ensuring economic development spreads to less developed nations.
Yeah, also not obvious to me. Although if it is that case that Chinese industrial espionage is uniquely widespread / state directed, that's at least one piece of evidence that the tradeoff between IP protection and state development is less binding than we might have otherwise thought. (Given that other countries have successfully developed without that level of involuntary tech transfer, in this hypothetical.)
Great post about how industrial espionage has fueled economic development globally for the past few centuries.
Brings to mind Bill Gates's response to Steve Jobs’ accusation that Microsoft stole from Apple by saying:
"Well, Steve, I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
A very fun read!
I wrote a similar article a while ago as well. Industrial espionage was indeed an important part of economic development for many countries.
https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/stealing-success-how-ip-theft-built
Modern IP laws enforced by the WTO and WIPO were created to protect the IP of creators and companies. So we have a global framework that prioritizes protecting the IP of advanced countries over allowing developing countries to pirate/steal/ascertain for technology transfer.
This was a fun read, thank you for writing it.
My impression—backed up, I admit, by no research whatsoever—is that China does happen to be exceptional in the *degree* of state sponsorship and direction of its industrial espionage program, at least compared to other modern success stories like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. (If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested to hear why.)
The other thing I'd note is that it's not hard to find examples of bad behavior during the formative years of the US and UK. But of course that doesn't mean similar behavior today shouldn't be condemned. So I would have been interested to hear what you think the normative implications of this history are, if any.
Thanks David. Its not really useful in my opinion to see this in such normative terms. Developing countries need these technologies to grow and to bring their own economies out of poverty/low-level equilibriums. So, from a moral perspective, we could also argue that it is "bad" that advanced countries would want to gatekeep growth and keep other countries underdeveloped. Of course there are implications for individual entrepreneurs or inventors, who would be less incentivized to innovate without protections from stealing. But its not obvious to me that protecting innovation (for innovation sake) is better than ensuring economic development spreads to less developed nations.
Yeah, also not obvious to me. Although if it is that case that Chinese industrial espionage is uniquely widespread / state directed, that's at least one piece of evidence that the tradeoff between IP protection and state development is less binding than we might have otherwise thought. (Given that other countries have successfully developed without that level of involuntary tech transfer, in this hypothetical.)