国产热热热精品,亚洲视频久久】日韩,三级婷婷在线久久,99人妻精品视频,精品九热人人肉肉在线,AV东京热一区二区,91po在线视频观看,久久激情宗合,青青草黄色手机视频

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

IPR investigation report doesn't hold water

By Zhu Baoliang | China Daily | Updated: 2018-04-11 06:57
Share
Share - WeChat
An employee works at a lab of SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation), a leader in IC chip manufacturing. [Photo/IC]

In his speech delivered at Boao Forum for Asia, President Xi Jinping stressed the importance of protecting intellectual property rights. He said China needs to better protect IPR by punishing the infringement of IPR more severely, and other countries should protect Chinese enterprises' IPR rights.

However, his words should not be misinterpreted as China bowing to pressure from the United States. Washington has launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 alleging violations of US companies' IPR by China.

First, the Section 301 probe report accuses China of forcing foreign companies to transfer technologies by citing some investigation reports of a few US organizations, but without disclosing information on critical factors such as the sample size, selection principle, questionnaire and time of survey.

The annual survey of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, frequently quoted in the Section 301 investigation report, is suspect because of its suggestive questionnaire, small sample size and opaque research process. Ambiguous expressions such as "according to reports" and "the stakeholders hold" often appear in the Section 301 report, while evidence on the so-called transfers of technologies forced upon foreign companies by the Chinese government is nowhere to be found.

The US report criticizes the Chinese government for "providing" companies with funds for systematic investment in and acquisition of US companies and assets in a bid to "acquire" core technology. It ignores the fact that the Chinese government's encouragement to Chinese companies participating in the global competition is, to a large extent, just guidance. The accusation that the Chinese government provides domestic companies with funds to expand their operations abroad is groundless.

Moreover, the United States' reviews of foreign capital are among the most vigorous in the world, with the review of Chinese companies being the strictest. Given these facts, Chinese enterprises' investment in and acquisition of US companies and assets cannot violate intellectual property rights or in any way harm US national security.

On the so-called worsening business environment in China mentioned in the Section 301 report, certain foreign companies have complained about the administrative procedures, including market access, investment permission and environmental impact assessment, in China. Yet owing to the government's unremitting efforts much improvement has been made on this front, as most of China's general manufacturing sector, except for sensitive fields such as national defense science and the technology industry, are open to foreign capital.

China's Government Work Report this year has explicitly said the general manufacturing sector will be further opened up, benefiting more foreign companies. Besides, last year's revision of the Catalogue of Industries for Guiding Foreign Investment has significantly reduced the restrictions on foreign capital's access to the Chinese market. The government has also established a fair competition review system, according to which all departments and local governments are limited to issue restrictive and exclusive regulations targeting foreign companies.

China, despite some problems, has been strengthening its IPR protection, and as Xi outlined in Boao, will continue to do so. The Section 301 investigation launched by the US is mainly aimed at leveraging greater access to the Chinese market for its companies.

Contrary to what the Trump administration believes, its moves will not reduce the US' trade deficits and industrial regression. On the contrary, they will aggravate them.

The better choice would be to resolve the two sides' trade differences through negotiations. And since the US started the conflict; it should take the lead to end it.

The author is chief economist at the State Information Center.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
岳西县| 朔州市| 黑水县| 肥乡县| 闸北区| 庄河市| 西城区| 固原市| 曲松县| 靖西县| 鄄城县| 河津市| 玛曲县| 张家界市| 武平县| 松原市| 高雄市| 华坪县| 贵溪市| 崇礼县| 商南县| 曲阜市| 中阳县| 清涧县| 莱州市| 阿克陶县| 临高县| 呼伦贝尔市| 论坛| 和平县| 西城区| 禹城市| 尖扎县| 普陀区| 忻城县| 乌鲁木齐市| 永新县| 旺苍县| 宜兰县| 虎林市| 黎川县|