Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fatty who wrote (18456)	3/11/2004 1:50:59 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 306849

China requires all American companies manufacturing in China to do so with a joint-venture partner. Many people believe this is simply because China wants to make sure their American partners don't run into any problems. They'll always have a 50% partner with local expertise to rely on. Those folks in the Chinese government sure are swell folks. Many people say that the USA and Britain only use the NSA run Echelon eavesdropping system to protect international security. Other nations who have complained that American and British competitors mysteriously know the exact details of their bidding price and terms on international contracts are simply paranoid, in the way that only a naive foreigner could be. There's several different interpretations of this. They just don't understand how well intentioned the U.S. government is. More to the point they didn't read that swell article last month on the Mises.org website highlighting the benefits of free trade. Some say American firms have retained psychics using elliptical brain waves. Were trying to teach those poor naive Chinese the rules to checkers, because they keep making the wrong moves. All the while, unbeknown to us, they're playing three-dimensional chess.

To: fatty who wrote (18456)	3/11/2004 4:14:06 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

It's not possible to determine ahead of time which standard is better in the long run. Attempts to push one standard over another for self serving purposes usually results in a technological deadend. I have enough boat anchors sitting in my office to make that point. The market does this as well, but not nearly as predictably as a committee.

To: fatty who wrote (18456)	3/11/2004 6:47:23 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

fatty, RE: "Loring Wirbel" Do a google on his name. RE: "Some say the 802.11 standard is not good enough and China simply wants a better one. eetimes.com Deconstructing China's WAPI" Excuse me? Where does the article show a "deconstruction of China's WAPI" standard? The article doesn't dissect the standard. Instead, the article talks POLITICS. Not technology. Loring states 3 POLITICAL reasons as to why he feels the USA GOVERNMENT is bad. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH INTEL? Loring doesn't state 2 reasons where apparently Intel has concerns: 1) China thrusted their standard down the world's throad, without any adequate time to prepare, develop nor conduct systems test. Good grief. China's unilateral standard is creating product quality issues. China just released this brandnew standard in November. Doesn't this writer even know how long it takes to tape out a chip? 2) There are customer issues with China's standards. When China released their standard, it appears they neglected to consider Intel has existing customers of many configurations. 3) I also believe Intel has questions about IP protection. Specifically, why does Intel have to give Intel's IP technology to the Chinese firms without IP protection/enforcement? ==> Does the writer really think breaking the IP laws should be allowed? ==> Isn't the writer aware of General Motor's Cherry, or Motorolo, or Toyota's logo, or around 600 Chinese IP thefts per year ??? At least India throws criminals in jail when they steal IP. China does NOT. 4) Lastly, standards should be global, not defined by one government. Our government officials were never involved in any communications standards I ever was involved with while at Microsoft. They completely stayed away, even though our comm standards were very entrenched and widespread in the market place. The only single time they intervened was when they discovered we wanted to send encryption overseas (which we learned from them you can't do without approval so we didn't). While the USA gov't stays completely out of the corporations, and doesn't mettle with corporations in any way, so we are free to design the best products for the market place, meanwhile, China's gov't micromanages their engineers - THAT would drive me nuts. China even sets up these fake companies that are actually part of their military gov't - one contact of mine knows a guy who was tossed into a USA jail because he did business with a Chinese firm that apparently was a front for their military. How do you know when it's a legitimate Chinese firm or the Chinese military? With China, you sometimes don't know which of their firms are for real and which ones could land a person in jail. I've been involved in comm standards for my entire career. China's gov't can have their engineers attend IEEE meetings, like the rest of the world. In fact, at the last IEEE consumer electronics world meeting in Hawaii, I saw what appeared to be approximately 50% folks from Asia in attendance. I've attended many IEEE communication standards body meetings in my life, and we have the GREATEST respect for all engineers, regardless of their country, from China, from everywhere. We only care about technology, not what country you come from. If anything, we got a bit disappointed at one meeting when the engineers from China didn't show up to a meeting. They need to learn to attend the conferences better. And it does appear like they are finally doing this. IEEE comm standards bodies have an allegiance to what is best technically, not to a country. If you're an IEEE engineer, you put technology first, no politics allowed. China needs to learn this, trust this process and start increasing their attendance in comm standards meetings (which it looks like they are finally doing.) Playing politics isn't the way to set standards. Standards should be set by IEEE and also the FREE market place. Not through IP theft by way of their gov't ! Regards, Amy J