• Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • News
  • Reviews
  • Features
  • Editorials
  • Long Term Tests
  • Video

Intellectual-Property Theft Will Impact China’s Auto Industry Development

Chris Haak/07 Mar, 13/999/0
Editorials

It’s well-known that China has some serious issues with protecting intellectual property.  From cars that are knockoffs of the name brand models (the Brilliance H530 is so similar to the F10 BMW 5 Series that enterprising vendors in China sell conversion kits to change the car into a low-buck 523i) to serious accusations of state-on-state cyber warfare, most global companies only reluctantly venture into agreements with Chinese companies.  Sure, they really want access to that large and growing market, but they are also deathly afraid about how their hard work on research and development may help their local Chinese partners more than them in the long run.

Intellectual property concerns were paramount when Ford sold Volvo to Chinese automaker Geely, so much so that Ford had to build protections into the agreement.  Concerns over transfers of GM’s IP that resided within Saab are what sunk all rescue efforts undertaken on behalf of the long-struggling, now-dead Swedish brand.  In a nutshell, GM didn’t want to see itself competing against its own IP in China in a few years.

The U.S. is taking Chinese cyber spying seriously, recently accusing a group that has ties to the Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA, or China’s powerful military) of breaching security at dozens of U.S. companies – many in defense or other strategic sectors.  The U.S. has warned China of trade, diplomatic, and other consequences if China’s behavior continues.  China, for its part, angrily denies that it has any culpability for the attacks, but there are far more smoking guns that show China’s responsibility for these attacks than China cares to admit.

What does this mean for the auto industry – both China’s independent automakers, many of whom aspire to eventually grow to a global scale, and for the current global automakers?  I think sometimes of the butterfly struggle story that many of us have heard.  Whether it’s true, I don’t know, but the moral of the story is that if you help a butterfly out of its chrysalis, its wings will not get enough blood circulating through them, and it will never fly.

If China’s automakers skimp on R&D, or steal R&D, and if the butterfly story holds true for them, it may mean that they will struggle to compete on the larger stage outside of China.  According to a report cited by Automotive News, China’s automakers spend about 2 percent of their revenue on research and development. The global norm is 4 percent. This means that they’re either going to remain behind the curve, or they’re going to have to steal their way to parity with their fast-moving, aggressive global competitors.  Frankly, because they need to catch up to their western peers, China’s automakers should be spending a larger percentage of revenues on R&D, not a smaller one.  Also, if China’s automakers don’t invest in their own R&D and rely on stolen trade secrets, it will eventually cause their western partners to balk at sharing technical know-how with them, which will harm China’s industry.

The report linked above also says that it will be ten years before any Chinese automaker is competitive on the global stage.  Funny how when I first started following the business side of the auto industry closely eight years ago, many felt that China would be selling cars in the U.S. within the next 18 to 24 months.  The world has changed dramatically since then (global economic crisis, continued growth of China’s domestic industry, and some ill-fated attempts to sell Chinese-branded cars in Europe among other things).

China’s auto industry is on an accelerated development past compared to the track that previously-developed countries’ auto industries took.  It took U.S. automakers decades – more than a 50 years – to get to the point that they were competitive with the best in the world.  It took Japan’s automakers about 20 years.  It took Korea’s automakers a little over 10 years.  China’s may take about that long.  But stealing intellectual property – whether that theft be of engineering materials or the design of vehicles – is no way for China’s industry to move into the future.

The other parallel between China’s industry and the U.S. is the way domestic brands are losing market share.  Decades ago, the Big Three (which we can’t even call them anymore; now they’re just the Detroit Three) commanded about 90 percent of the U.S. market.  Today that share is less than 50 percent.  China is seeing something similar; the country’s domestic brands like Geely, Brilliance, and  SAIC are losing share to their joint-venture partners that can rely on western car-development know-how.  Chinese buyers aren’t stupid, and they are willing to spend more money to get a superior product.  But once the home team’s products achieve parity, or near parity, with the offerings from GM, Volkswagen, BMW, and Audi, those brands and others will need to watch out.

Chinaintellectual propertyIP theftpatentsR&Dtrade dispute

BNSF Railway Will Switch Some Locomotives to...

07 Mar, 13

When Not To File An Insurance Claim

07 Mar, 13

Related Posts

Long Term Tests

Long Term Wrap-Up: 2013 Toyota Sienna XLE AWD

GM Cruise
News

Honda Will Invest $2.75B in GM’s Cruise...

Rotary Engine
News

Mazda is Bringing Back the Rotary Engine

Chris Haak
Chris is FMA's Founder and Editor-in-Chief. He has a lifelong love of everything automotive, having grown up as the son of a car dealer. Chris spent the past decade writing for, managing, and eventually owning Autosavant before selling the site to pursue other interests. A married father of two sons, Chris is also in the process of indoctrinating them into the world of cars and trucks.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Posts

  • Long Term Wrap-Up: 2013 Toyota Sienna XLE AWD
  • Honda Will Invest $2.75B in GM’s Cruise Autonomous-Vehicle Unit
  • Mazda is Bringing Back the Rotary Engine
  • Goodbye, NAFTA. Hello NAFTA 2.0 (USMCA)
  • I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5

Recent Comments

  • Jon on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • chrisadm on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • Christopher Smith on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • Christopher Smith on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5
  • Chris Haak on I May Have Been the First to Put BF Goodrich KO2s on an Audi Q5

Advert

Instagram

Archives

  • March 2020
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • April 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007

  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy