IP

Ok-Audience-6406

haha yes, please buy more shores. I think DIS and both are turnaround stories with current management not executing well. DIS has already started becoming asset-light and focusing more on monetizing the IP. TGT needs a CEO change; compared to WMT it has been a laggard, and TGT had a much better brand perception but that has taken a hit. If they announce a CEO change, the stock will rocket!

AMReese

China has engaged in IP theft, cyber espionage, and cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure. They've also pursued economic subversion through debt-trap diplomacy and interfered in our elections. Furthermore, they fund and support terrorist groups that target the US, have bombed US military installations, and protect North Korea. Do I need to go on?

iLov3musk

If companies shift the cost to global consumers wont this just encourage countries to bypass IP laws and create their own generic versions affordable medicines? Because many countries cannot afford American prices

Potato_Octopi

What do you mean? >So when other countries use the same drugs they just need to adapt what America has already provided, no need to fund R&D. Most places around the world aren't going to get away with just taking IP, if that's what you mean. Like we didn't just get free COVID vax from Germany.

RampantPrototyping

>will never ever ever have SMIC produce their chips due to IP theft Not a a chip export, so Im curious, whats to stop them from putting an Nvidia or AMD chip under a microscope (figuratively) and copying the design layout?

mayorolivia

What western semi producers? SMIC’s main competitor is TSMC. The only two other major producers are Intel and Samsung, both of whom while are indeed western, are not in the same ballpark as TSMC. SMIC’s issue is the world’s biggest chip designers (Nvidia, AMD, Apple, Broadcom, Qualcomm, etc etc) will never ever ever have SMIC produce their chips due to IP theft and geopolitical risk. So they will have to depend on domestic companies for growth.

wonklebobb

because focusing only on stock numbers is missing the forest for the trees China already shifted huge amounts of imports to other countries, that won't be coming back any time soon (if at all) EU has announced plans to shift both military and economic reliance away from the US Canada announced shifting dependence away from the US Even if the stock market recovers in the medium term, long term the US is cooked economically. Since we don't make anything, our only value to the international community was our military vs larger terrorist orgs, our service-based IP (movies, music, etc), our vast amount of cash for buying things, and a huge amount of good will from decades of soft power and contributing to/leading international aid initiatives. nearly all of that is gone. PEPFAR is gone. USAID is gone. International food aid programs are gone. The US no longer has anything to offer the international community except our movies and music, and how far will that get us? We enjoyed *very* favorable standing in trade deals in no small part because we gave back in the form of aid programs that literally saved millions of lives and have a huge agricultural output. VTI up 100% on 5 years is pointless in the face of that. Meaningless numbers bouncing up and down while the actual on-the-ground programs that built the US enviable position at the top of the global leadership hierarchy lie in ruins. China is not missing a beat, by the way - they are investing vast sums into infrastructure all over the African continent, because unlike Trump (and you, apparently) they at understand that power is much more than stock number go up.

atxlonghorn23

>Not honouring these long patent times is one way EU and Canada have been considering retaliating in the trade wars. This would become very ugly for those countries, since the US could sanction or tariff the countries and their companies for violation their own IP laws on patents already granted to US companies. And retribution would not need to be restricted to the pharmaceutical industry (i.e. EU violates US pharma patents, in response US massively tariffs imports of cars from the EU).

katbyte

there is nothing stopping other countries from making these drugs other then them enforcing IP law. tomorrow they can say "we are invaliding your patent for our citizens health" and just like that american companies make zero. america needs to fix its own problems and not shove the costs of its failures onto other countries

katbyte

\> pharmaceutical companies will simply raise the price on drugs for other countries and other countries can just say fuck you and just not. thats the hilarious thing other countries will not just pay \> If those other countries get upset, the pharmaceutical company just shrugs their shoulders and says, sorry, it’s the law, I have to raise the price for you. and then just invalidate their IP and continue to manufacture them for national health concerns. whats are the states gonna do? MORE tariffs? lol its the tariffs all over thinking he "has the cards" when he has none look how quick he folded with china

Personal-Reality9045

Lol. The thing about these systems is you need the whole world to cooperate. With XRP, there's a central point of control, which the American's have, so it's not decentralized like Bitcoin. I don't see other countries adopting it since you need everybody cooperating on one system. These things are protocols - they're essentially internets. The marketplace does have to choose a winner because we are deciding on something like TCP/IP. There's no point in having multiple internets. I don't think XRP is going to win. They have lower security, they're centralized. In my mind, Bitcoin has already won. It's the clear winner and has the highest security and the most distributed.

Simur1

Here's the funny. IP is not a bulwark for a national economy. It is a means for creating artificial monopolies which allow for a degree of price fixing, essentially the removal of consumers' right to choose the best alternative. All countries have means to push back against those monopolies when strategic industries are involved - As a matter of fact, the US is actually the exception when it comes to essential pharmaceuticals, for example - so China did nothing unforeseen. In fact, what China did was less IP steal, but technology poaching. You put your factories there, they hired cheaper workforce, and when you went for an even cheaper place, you left them the factory and know how. Now you are doing essentially the same in India, but do not really care in this case. Who controls your IP has always been beside the point. What the US actually hates about China is that it cannot penetrate its institutions, influence its policies, or impose its own business. That being said, the US needs China more than the other way round. They have been far more successful at building client networks, and have no problem at finding consumers. In that scenario, tariffs have displaced you from a preferential client to the place to send their excedents to. You cannot force them to sell to you first, so lowering the tariff was a cherry on top. Have in mind that China was ready for a trade war from almost a decade ago, and will certainly use this scenario to come out on top. You are worse off than before. It would have been otherwise if tariffs were more discretional. The only saving grace right now is that markets are stupid. We are in the bullish part of the cycle, and there seems just about nothing you can do to convince investors otherwise. But markets represent an expectation of value. They don't put oil in your cars, food in your aisles or screws in your factories. A side effect of these disruptions is going to be the destruction of small margin and slow cycle businesses, because of price fluctuations and strategic uncertainty. That means your economy will paradoxically shift even further to services and rent extraction, rather than industry and innovation. Then they will pull the rug on you, because, obviously, that's what they have been building to.

Elegant-Magician7322

It is actually a 10% increase from where it was before. 20% is the fentanyl tariff, which was there before liberation day. Basically, China said no talks until tariffs drop, and that’s what happened. What beneficial deal will happen remains to be seen. Bringing manufacturing back to US might make sense for some industries, like cars, but does not make sense for most of the goods US imports from China. US is not going to bring back manufacturing of Nike sneakers, because it doesn’t make sense financially for the company, and I have yet to talk to someone say, I hope my son grow up to make shoes in a factory. US is a service economy, not a manufacturing economy. These tariffs are for manufacturing only. The stealing of IP you speak of is in tech, which does not depend on physically exporting a good, and is not affected by tariffs.

PlanetCosmoX

They only have to ban the exchanges from Internet access in those counties by IP. That would end Bitcoin in that country. Other countries have the same problem with respect to loss of tax revenue, and will do the same. And voila. A very easy solution that can be applied within minutes.

BufordT69

"Did I miss something?" Nope, you didn't miss anything! \*Some\* of the media's negative/half the story portrayal of the tariffs, and the reasons behind them had/has many people thinking the world was going to end - so when the news comes out that the eeeevil tariffs (THE cause of all the misery experienced by some, according to the same media/politicians), the sheep celebrate. There's no way in the world that China is going to stop stealing IP, disadvantaging non-Chinese companies in their legal system, maintaining non-tariff barriers to trade, etc etc. Their track record of follow-through, unless they actually \*need\* whatever it is at the moment, is abysmal. BUT, in broad terms, on such subjects the market is driven by ignorance and fear. So while you're intellectually correct, there's LOTS of politics involved by various players, who always portray things for the benefit of themselves or those they support. My 2 cents is that you just have to recognize the realities surrounding various subjects, and adjust your investment choices/vehicles/tools accordingly.

JoeProbiotic

This sub has gotten astonishingly emotion. Every comment on this thread is coming from a state of pure emotion. Most of you just want America to fail because you hate the president, but I’ll try to paint the picture. For decades, china has been stealing global IP and manufacturing it at a fraction of the cost. They also do not allow most US businesses to participate in their economy, while we have allowed everyone in the US to buy Chinese goods. This is why the tariffs were set at 150% or whatever they were.  Over the weekend, trade discussions are showing that china is willing to talk and potentially willing to make concessions, something we have never seen. Like Trump or not, if he can negotiate with china to allow more free trade between the US and china, it will be a net good for both economies.  The market isn’t rallying because they dropped to 30%, the market is rallying on optimism that in the long run, if we can make a deal, it will benefit most economies globally. 

optiontrader1138

This was a win in the deepest way imaginable. After causing untold economic harm to their economy, China has accepted the conditions that Trump set on them. Except now 34% is a floor and de minimus exception is still up in the air, while China now has to concede IP and fentanyl protections, and perhaps even concessions around currency manipulation. Meanwhile, the "shelves are empty" recession is DOA, exactly as suggested.

therin_88

You basically tell the company, which are often American companies or at least American divisions of companies, that they're not allowed to sell something in the US for a higher price than they sell it in X country. This means they have to level out the prices by raising them elsewhere or lowering them here. If they refuse to do so, they're open to fines and/or aren't allowed to sell the product here. And since the government controls the FDA which is the regulatory body to which drugs must be submitted, you could punish the company for non-compliance by stripping them of their exclusivity and allow other companies to make it cheaper. A big reason for why drug prices are so high is because companies are allowed exclusive IP rights on it and can set their own price. For some reason this is not considered a monopoly. After a while, they lose exclusivity but that can take years. I don't really like the idea of federal government interference with the markets but in the case of life saving medicine I'm willing to make an exception.

Mosesofdunkirk

Tariffs will be practically zero between China and Usa eventually. Deals will be made on various items but the general consumption items will be zero, china will say yes to buying chips and not stealing IP, usa will be okay to Chinese manufacturers.

Aramis9696

Unfortunately, in pharmaceuticals, molecules are patented and can't just be made by any company. Even if you give it another name, if the patent owner can prove it's the same molecule, they can destroy you in any court. The only country that wouldn't care is China, as they only care about IP among Chinese.

kausti

>Sure, you can make this claim but I'd be curious what evidence there is to back this up. Large financing is of course needed for large and innovative projects, but resource allocation isn't always done efficiently. I could make the argument that artificially low interest rates cause businesses to continue that would otherwise fail and people to get loans who shouldn't be getting loans. Are there some risk takers in this bunch that create something great? Sure. But at the expense of how much overproduction, waste and overconsumption? An interest rate of about 2% is something all leading countries in the world have agreed on, and it gives the possibility to manage the national economy by adjusting the interest rates, as well as pushes companies to put their money to work creating jobs, new products and more, among other things. There are no countries on earth who have a zero target for their inflation, and you don't really have any compelling evidence that there is a reason to have it, so I don't really see what you're trying to say here? That every national economist in the world is wrong? Sure, that **could** be the case but as mentioned it's proved that we've gotten it better and better for each generation, very much so, and you have zero evidence for your world view. I am fine with adapting to new evidence, but you have none of that do you? >Ok so based on what I'm hearing - I invest in the S&P 500 because there is a long time horizon and less risk. I understand that. My point is that the true rate of inflation makes it a **not as great of an investment** as it is typically preached. I'm curious about what I'm underestimating in this context. In order to answer that you need to define what you mean is a "great return" for a long term investment. And we haven't talked risk awareness yet, which is also a huge part of all this. E.g. winning a billion dollars after 20 spins betting on red on the roulette table doesn't make it a great investment when adjusted for risk, it just means that you we're lucky. But please define what you mean by "a great investment" long term and how you got that number. Funny enough the American way tends to be to start from the outcome and then argue what they did to get there, without realizing the variance in that outcome over a large sample size. You can see this in sports, entrepreneurs and more and it's basically a lame take on survivorship bias. \> People always ask, "Why can't someone just make a better Bitcoin?" But the truth is, improving on Bitcoin means sacrificing one or more of the very things that make it valuable. Today that might be true, do you think that will be the fact in 20 years with the current AI boom happening? If not, then what will happen with Bitcoin once something better comes along? \> Trying to make a "better Bitcoin" is like trying to make a better version of TCP/IP, the foundational protocol of the internet. You can build new features elsewhere (like HTTPS or apps on top), but you don’t replace TCP/IP without breaking everything that depends on it — global consensus, reliability, and compatibility. But Bitcoin is not a foundation of anything today, it's merely a hyped technology that speculators can invest in. What you're saying is more like saying "betamax was better than VHS, hence it should've been used worldwide". You have yet to prove a single reason to why Bitcoin should be valued at the price it is.

Bromigo112

>We have a better world today than 100 years ago Correct. >much of it has to do with forcing money to be put to work Sure, you can make this claim but I'd be curious what evidence there is to back this up. Large financing is of course needed for large and innovative projects, but resource allocation isn't always done efficiently. I could make the argument that artificially low interest rates cause businesses to continue that would otherwise fail and people to get loans who shouldn't be getting loans. Are there some risk takers in this bunch that create something great? Sure. But at the expense of how much overproduction, waste and overconsumption? >The same reason as why you wouldn't want to "invest" on red at the roulette table: long term predictability. You severely underestimate everything about the financial system to suit your world view for some reason. Ok so based on what I'm hearing - I invest in the S&P 500 because there is a long time horizon and less risk. I understand that. My point is that the true rate of inflation makes it a not as great of an investment as it is typically preached. I'm curious about what I'm underestimating in this context. >So what happens the day another coin, better than Bitcoin in all these aspects, comes along? Or do you think Bitcoin will forever be better than what comes next for all eternity? People always ask, "Why can't someone just make a better Bitcoin?" But the truth is, improving on Bitcoin means sacrificing one or more of the very things that make it valuable. Bitcoin's strengths come from hard tradeoffs: - Decentralization – No founder controls it. New coins usually have teams, insiders, pre-mines, etc. True decentralization is earned, not launched. - Security – Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is battle-tested and secured by the most cumulative hash power on Earth. Most alternatives either compromise on security or use newer, unproven methods (like PoS). - Scarcity – Its fixed 21M cap is simple and trustless. Try to improve on that and you either break the math or centralize control over monetary policy. - Network Effects – Bitcoin is the most held, most recognized, most integrated, most liquid. Adoption like this can’t be forked or fast-tracked. - Lindy Effect – It’s survived attacks, bugs, bans, and wars for 15 years. Trust is built over time, and no altcoin has that history. Trying to make a "better Bitcoin" is like trying to make a better version of TCP/IP, the foundational protocol of the internet. You can build new features elsewhere (like HTTPS or apps on top), but you don’t replace TCP/IP without breaking everything that depends on it — global consensus, reliability, and compatibility. Bitcoin is like digital bedrock — slow, simple, but rock-solid. You build on it. You don’t reinvent it.

RedditAdminAreVile0

You should pay more than the poorest war-torn African countries? You have the 6th highest wages. Using other developed countries as a reference is a good idea, whereas making medicine unaffordable in South Sudan is plain evil. America is the ONLY developed country that refuses to regulate & provide medicine, 100% America's fault. Trump raises drug prices, lies, blames Dems, puts out fake executive order. If congress accepts, what's the plan? If companies won't sell at those prices will you ban medicine & die? If they price-match, they'll just raise prices as they don't make money of poor countries, whose citizens you'll kill, yay? Many countries will refuse price hikes, they'll sell knock-offs, America will sue, global opposition might end USA's global trade system. I hope it ends USA's IP system, countries make knock-offs, & USA's biggest companies tank. But Trump always backtracks.

No_Technician7058

sanctions against generic drug manufacturers which only sell within their country is exactly the kind of moronic move i would expect from the current US administration. but i think you give them too much credit. i don't think the current administration will care at all if US companies have their IP stepped all over in Thailand. they'll have long since moved onto sending world cup visitors to el salvador for smoking pot or triggering a bank runs by threatening to abolish the FDIC.

vubjof

they cant, other countries negotiate prices and even treat pharma country to steal the IP and do the drug themselves for national security reasons if they dont bulge in lowering it

No_Technician7058

> Not sure if this means the developing world will no longer get medicine WTO can issue compulsory licenses for manufacturing drugs without IP holder approval if US drug companies refuse to manufacture & sell into poorer countries. generic manufacturers can then step in and fill the void.

No_Technician7058

if US drug companies withdraw from entire countries the WTO allows for issuing compulsory licenses for the production of generics without authorization by IP holders. so its more like US companies would lose market share to generic manufacturers.

Western_Building_880

U over estimate the abil6of republican party to function independent of Trump. Republicans with sense of integrity are sidelined. The deal doesn't matter imo. Any USA administration will see china with hostility. There will be constant pressure for US companies to de risk. It is crazy cause China had a hood thing going on. Byd success was the last straw for a us growing tired of seeing it's businesses fail and have IP stolen. Globalization qs we know is over imo. From now on it will be more regional economies. Stock market is a headline market. Take profit. Derisk is my strategy.

Wise_Monkey_Sez

This is more "empty shelves" policy. The bottom line is that setting the price for something like Ozempic (where demand exceeds supply) at the lowest price in the world means that overseas manufacturers will simply not sell to the USA.  Even if Trump plans to go the way of India and rewrite IP law to reduce protection for pharmaceuticals companies it'll still take years to build up manufacturing capacity - during which time countless people will die. 

Panican_Skywalker

Oh no those poor drug companies that are price gouging consumers charging 10,000% above their cost because they purchased the IP on a drug developed 70 years ago. How will they stay afloat?

fiqziq142

Only possible way this can happen is to cut or limit the company's that manufature or IP the product's profit. Salute!

roguespectre67

Not that I don’t want prescription drugs to be less expensive, but I would have thought that the party of unfettered, unrestricted, free-market ultracapitalism would’ve approved of Big Pharma making as much money off their IP and their products as it was possible to make. Funny how that works.

BOKEH_BALLS

If China was cloning Tesla's IP how come Chinese cars are far outstripped anything Tesla is capable of? Why doesn't Tesla have the technology you're hallucinating the Chinese have stolen? You know they have megawatt charging now (\~5 mins to fully charge) for their EVs?

jwrig

So you're for winning a battle but losing the war because that is what is going on. Huawei stole IP from Cisco, put out nearly identical products at a significant discount American Semiconductor was a leader in wind turbine software, they sold copies to a chinese company called Sinovel, who immediately stole the code, and resold it at a massive discount, and damn near put them out of business Mattel and Hasbro moved manufacturing to China, and Chinese companies put out duplicates at a massive discount, and damn near bankrupt both companies. Evergreen solar moved manfuacturing to China, they stole the tech, sold the same products at a 50-70 percent discount putting Evergreen out of business. GoPro moved manufacturing to China, Xaiomi and SJCam took the IP, producted replicas at a massive discount. Since this is a stock market thread, why not look at why the Shanghai stock market is relatively flat... because their companies operate on a minimal profit model aided by massive subsidies to undercut any sort of competiton until they drive all of them out of business so you have no choice BUT to buy from Chinese companies. If you think Trump is the worse evil between the two, then you're not looking at the big picture. Unless Trump starts launching nukes, China is far worse for the world, and will harm far more people than Trump ever will. Trump only looks worse when you focus on the now.

Least-Cup79

"we". I have been to China. I have Chinese childhood friends. Nobody thinks this way outside of Reddit. US admin has been lying for decades, plenty of censorship, and lots of IP theft. It's still not comparable to the CCP.

jwrig

Sure, but Tesla is a bad example because is the ONLY foreign automaker who has 100% ownership of their factory. They are unique among thousands of other businesses that operate... you know what else you'll find in China. EV companies that clone tesla's IP because well... China doesn't respect IP, and is well known to take it, add on it, build their own chinese owned products, and sell them at steep discounts. If you think that is better and the US is worse, then I don't know what to say other than you're grossly misinformed.

Kermez

Everyone was stealing IP, just look at how AI is trained. But scaling that and improving is a key, and China is incredibly good at it. https://www.history.com/articles/industrial-revolution-spies-europe

mchu168

Violating WTO rules. Hacking into private US networks. Infiltrating US universities and companies to steal IP. The list goes on... educate yourself.

Somethingood27

IP theft? Oh you mean the IP that our corporations couldn’t send over to China fast enough once they saw how cheaply they could manufacture our shit? In what world do you live in where willing handing over raw engineering blue prints / product design specs / tooling info to a foreign nation doesn’t include them using it for themselves? Lmao you really believe our CEO S didn’t consider that risk when offshoring all of our manufacturing? 😂

killerdrgn

Watch it be that China gets to buy all the advanced IP and manufacturing rights in return for the US dropping tariffs.

Walternotwalter

Seriously. Such good guys...... The platform is a cesspool and if Hindenburg was still the master shorter and somehow forced Reddit to disclose their user base IP's and it would destroy this shitco. Trump's a jerk off but there isn't a single economist worth listening to who will ignore China's insane malinvestment and unpoliced surplus.

Crazy_Donkies

Yes America is making a mistake with this application of tariffs, but calm down China.  You're far from innocent.  IP theft is real and pervasive.

FullDerpHD

You guys are wild lol "China is emerging as the rational one" is just a wild statement. You guys do know they are notorious for slave labor making it impossible to compete with them and stealing IP from every country they do business with right? If you're falling for this shit you need to take a look at how much your dislike for trump(which is fine) is affecting your ability to look at things rationally.

Generational_Wealth6

>After decades of IP theft from all over the world Cry more.

mchu168

Yes of course we all know this. It's about China's IP theft, economic espionage, WTO violations, currency devaluation program, and dumping of goods from government subsidized industries. Yes of course this is about much more than just trade.

koffee_addict

After decades of IP theft from all over the world, they are talking about cooperation and shared growth. Total Changs

TubeframeMR2

40 years ago they were farmers. They are no leading in a number of technologies that will underpin the future. They are also investing heavily in human capital and science, domination in IP is not far behind.

Sarcasm69

True, but until there is an apparent shift in relying the West for IP and foundational work they’re likely to be a few steps behind always

supercharger6

China doesn’t allow American big tech to operate in china, how is that openness by china ? A lot of manufacturing IP also stolen and copied, and they don’t buy product anymore.

chris_ut

China has a quota system of how many American films can be shown in their theaters. It was originally capped at 10 per year but increased over time. China has forced IP transfers wherein American companies who want to do business there have to give all their IP to their Chinese counterparts who later take over the business entirely. China imposes high tariffs on a number of US imports to protect its domestic businesses and subsidizes many business segments that allow dumping under cost in certain segments to destroy US competitors (solar panels being the most famous example).

Electrical-Gas-1597

Well, the reason China had placed tariffs on the US is pretty simple. China is trying to dissuade their populace from buying US products. China has a proven track record of reverse engineering products and stealing IP from companies and then rebranding them as their own. The US, being a capitalist based market, attempts to play by fair rules. The Chinese don't have that distinction. The US was late to the game in fighting back, and thats why our deficit with them is so high. Moving production to another country would fix the issue. But that isn't going to happen. We moved some to Taiwan, and the Chinese fought back then too.

callmecrude

This is one of the most out of touch articles I’ve read in a long time. > QNX is a next-generation OS QNX has been around since the ‘80s and BlackBerry has owned it since 2010. It’s about the farthest thing from “next generation” you’ll ever find. This entire article is genuinely the same vibe as if Microsoft came out and unveiled Internet Explorer as a next generation web browser > QNX held a commanding 46% market share in automotive OS as of 2021 And the reason they cite 4 year old data is because the OS sucks and they’re losing market share. OEM’s are opting to just design their own software > Global Information projects the market [for automotive OS] will grow from $14.03 billion in 2023 to over $26.31 billion by 2030. Notice how the author just claimed BlackBerry had a 46% market share, yet they’re only bringing in $240M QNX revenue when it’s a $14B industry? This should highlight how little of an edge BlackBerry actually has. Infotainment OS is a zero margin business. The only way to convince automakers to use you is to give it to them for pennies. No moat. > Once grappling with quarterly losses of $35 million, BlackBerry has returned to profitability They’re literally still unprofitable by GAAP accounting. $80M loss in the previous fiscal year. Citing operating income instead of net income is just ridiculously misleading > BlackBerry operates two additional business units. Its Cybersecurity Division […] and its IP Licensing Division They sold the biggest piece of their cybersecurity division last year for a massive loss. One of the worst run cybersecurity firms in North America. And they’ve milked most of their IP dry at this point. I used to own BB stock for a lot of years (2013-2018). It’s a dying company that keeps trying to reinvent itself. They were one of the first major phone companies and managed to blow the lead. They were an early adopter of cybersecurity and managed to blow the lead. They were a major EV operating system developer and managed to blow the lead. This is what happens when all levels of management are decayed and outdated.

Dr_iWally

China never has close the Market for US ! The **Chinese market was not closed to U.S. goods** before the recent tariff escalation. In fact, until early 2025, China remained: # ✅ Open — but selective — toward U.S. imports Here’s how the trade environment looked in 2024: # 🌐 U.S. Companies Were Actively Exporting to China * **Agricultural goods**: Soybeans, pork, corn, and beef were major exports — though previously hit by retaliatory tariffs, these were mostly relaxed or granted exemptions in 2023–2024. * **Semiconductors & electronics**: U.S. firms like Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm still had a strong market presence in China. * **Medical devices & pharma**: These sectors faced **minimal restrictions**, and some U.S. products were even favored for their quality. * **Luxury goods, cars, aviation parts**: Many U.S. brands like Tesla, Boeing, and fashion houses were actively selling into China. * **Entertainment & IP**: Hollywood movies and tech/software (under regulation) were still entering the Chinese market. # 🧾 No Blanket Ban There were: * **Standard import controls** (like for any other country) * **Product-specific licensing or inspections** * Occasional **retaliatory tariffs** (but many were suspended or exempted via application) # ⚖️ Business Climate in 2024 (pre-2025 conflict) * Trade volumes between the U.S. and China were **strong**. * U.S. exports to China in 2024 totaled over **$150 billion**, particularly in high-tech and agriculture. * U.S. brands **continued expanding** operations in China, despite geopolitical tensions. # 📌 In summary: **China never "closed" its market to the U.S.** — it applied **targeted restrictions**, especially during political tensions, but trade continued in key sectors. The 2025 developments mark a **sharp shift** from that relatively stable phase.

Better-Ad-2118

Thanks for the response—and I completely understand the instinct to push back on lofty valuation targets. But let’s walk through your points carefully because, respectfully, some key facts may shift the risk/reward framing. **1. “Valuation is not absurdly low—it reflects trial risk.”** True in principle—but the degree of discount here is extreme relative to peers with similar data maturity. - ATYR trades at a ~$300M market cap while entering **Q3 Phase 3 readout** for a rare disease with **zero FDA-approved competitors**. It has: - Statistically significant Phase 2a data (+180mL FVC, p = 0.035; 85% relapse reduction) *(ERJ Open Research, May 2025)*, - A fully enrolled, DSMB-validated 268-patient Phase 3 (EFZO-FIT) *(aTyr Corporate Update, May 2025)*, - A running FDA-sanctioned **Expanded Access Program** based on investigator demand *(aTyr Q1 2025 earnings)*, - **Orphan + Fast Track** designation from both FDA and EMA for sarcoidosis and SSc-ILD *(FDA/EMA designations via aTyr IR website)*. This is not a preclinical pipe dream. It’s a **de-risked, regulatory-aligned, pre-commercial setup**. By contrast, Arena ($6.7B), Receptos ($7.3B), and Karuna ($14B) all had Phase 2/3 immunology assets at time of takeout—but **none had the biological depth or platform optionality** that ATYR offers in fibrosis, ILD, and oncology *(comps: Pfizer, Celgene, BMS acquisition data)*. **2. “Weakish readout or delay would be a big issue as money runs out in Q4.”** Important concern—but it’s not accurate to say they’ll run out of money before the readout. - Cash balance as of Q1 2025 = **$78.8M** *(Q1 2025 10-Q filing)*, - Runway explicitly covers operations **through and beyond Phase 3 readout** in Q3 *(Q1 2025 earnings call)*. In addition, aTyr is eligible for additional milestone payments from their Japan partner **Kyorin**—with over **$155M in development and commercial milestones** remaining *(Kyorin partnership agreement via aTyr IR)*. **3. “The trial is just testing steroid reduction, not disease modification.”** This is a misunderstanding of both the **design** and **regulatory context**. Yes, the **primary endpoint is steroid reduction**—but: - That is **aligned with FDA guidance** and accepted as a valid clinical endpoint in sarcoidosis *(FDA/ATS/WASOG guidelines)*. - The trial also has **secondary endpoints** for **lung function (FVC), quality of life (KSQ-Lung)**, and **symptom burden** *(ClinicalTrials.gov EFZO-FIT entry)*. Importantly, the *prior* Phase 2a trial already showed **concurrent improvement** across all of these dimensions—even during a forced steroid taper: - +180mL FVC - 85% reduction in relapse - Better KSQ and biomarker profiles than placebo *(ERJ Open Research, 2025)* And this isn’t just internal data: it’s **peer-reviewed, published**, and was even selected for the **Best of CHEST 2024** conference *(CHEST 2024 Abstract Highlights)*. **4. “This isn’t a multi-billion platform. That’s retail hopium.”** Again, let’s look at the facts: - **Sarcoidosis** TAM = $1.6B–$2.3B *(DelveInsight and GlobalData reports)*, - **Systemic sclerosis-ILD** = high-mortality, no curative options. TAM easily exceeds $1B *(Science Translational Medicine 2025; ACR/NIH estimates)*, - **CTD-ILD, CHP** and other ILDs = follow-ons with demonstrated NRP2 macrophage involvement *(Science Translational Medicine 2025; aTyr pipeline)*, - **ATYR0101**: Anti-fibrotic fusion protein targeting LTBP1 → $3B+ across liver, kidney, and lung fibrosis *(aTyr pipeline briefing, 2024)*, - **ATYR2810**: Oncology bispecific targeting NRP2/VEGF-C → data presented at **AACR 2025** *(AACR 2025 Abstract Book)*. Together, this forms a **tRNA synthetase-derived immunobiology platform with over 200 granted patents** *(aTyr IP portfolio overview)*. **Bottom Line** There are always risks in biotech, but $ATYR is being valued like a Phase 1 single-pathway flyer. That simply doesn’t match the dataset, pipeline, or strategic positioning. - This is a **Phase 3 platform** with clean safety, validated mechanism (NRP2), and FDA-aligned endpoints. - It is trading at **1/10th–1/20th the valuation of peer takeouts** with similar or inferior data. - Float is **tightly held by institutions (~97% of float), short interest is 12%, and volume remains thin**—all preconditions for structural dislocation if results are clean. No hopium here—just asymmetric math and a very real shot at re-rating. Appreciate the skepticism—it sharpens the argument. But this setup is rare, and all the ingredients are on the table. Let’s see what happens.

cyborg_elephant

Not to mention the IP theft ...why does everyone hate being tough with CHINA?

omgpuppiesarecute

Even if they did, the factory wouldn't bring new jobs. No one is going to hire a bunch of workers who have to work in shifts, can sue you, can steal from you, aren't rational or educated enough to provide much IP, need work life balance... For 30 years of workforce wages you could buy machines and automated systems to do that work 24x7 with a 30 year service life.

Better-Ad-2118

**Thanks for sharing your thoughts—there’s obviously value in discussing trial design concerns critically. That said, I believe several points in your comment fully deserve further clarification based on the EFZO-FIT trial design, published data, and best practices in steroid-sparing studies.** **1. Baseline Imbalance:** The claim that “the test groups were not identical at the start” doesn’t align with the published EFZO-FIT design (ATS 2024 abstract) or company disclosures. Patients were randomized across 85 global sites with strict eligibility criteria: biopsy-confirmed sarcoidosis ≥6 months, FVC ≥50%, KSQ-Lung ≤70, and baseline prednisone dose between 7.5–25 mg/day. The use of stratified randomization and exclusion of patients on >1 immunosuppressant minimized variability. In fact, EFZO-FIT is considered one of the *most rigorously designed placebo-controlled trials ever run in this indication*. **2. Confidence Intervals and Early-Phase Data:** Yes, the earlier Phase 1b/2a study (n=37) had overlapping confidence intervals between 5mg/kg and placebo on some endpoints—but this is typical in small early-phase trials. What mattered was that efzofitimod showed dose-dependent improvement in both **steroid reduction** and **patient-reported outcomes** (PROs), which led to 5mg/kg being selected for Phase 3. The EFZO-FIT trial (n=264+) is powered to resolve those CI overlaps and detect statistical significance. There have been *no DSMB stoppages or amendments*—a key signal that efficacy or futility thresholds weren’t breached early. **3. Steroid Tapering and Subjectivity:** You’re right: steroid-sparing studies can introduce subjectivity due to physician judgment. But EFZO-FIT minimizes this risk through: - Forced taper protocol: Patients tapered between Day 15–85, reducing variability. - Fixed baseline steroid range: All patients began on a standard 7.5–25 mg/day dose. - Blinded review and centralized protocols. Moreover, the trial triangulates steroid tapering with **objective measures** (FVC) and **validated PROs** (KSQ-Lung, SGRQ). So while subjectivity exists, the design incorporates safeguards to extract a clinically and statistically meaningful signal. **4. Signs of Efficacy Are Real—and Consistent:** In the earlier study, 5mg/kg efzofitimod demonstrated: - **A reduction in corticosteroid use**, exceeding placebo. - Statistically significant and clinically meaningful **improvements in KSQ-Lung and SGRQ**. - Dose-dependent reduction in **inflammatory biomarkers** like IP-10 and TNF-α. These multi-domain improvements—objective, subjective, and biological—form a compelling foundation for the Phase 3 program. **Bottom Line:** It’s fair to be cautious—biotech investing demands it. But the claim that efzofitimod’s Phase 3 readout is likely to be “ambiguous” underestimates both the **trial’s power** and the **biological signal** already observed. EFZO-FIT is unusually well-constructed for a rare disease trial, and efzofitimod’s selective NRP2 modulation represents a truly novel mechanism supported by translational science from Scripps, Boston Children’s, and aTyr’s mechanistic publications. And let’s not forget: the institutional ownership base has grown dramatically over the past two quarters, and now includes **FMR, Vanguard, Point72, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Adage, Alyeska, and Logos**—not typical behavior for a “maybe” readout. Their analysts would’ve already weighed all of these exact risks. $ATYR

noce96

It's honestly ridiculous how serious that crap is taken. What's next? They get your IP Address and send the local swat team to your place?

SquatDeadliftBench

**Respectfully, you're missing the forest for the trees while lecturing me on bark patterns.** You're absolutely right that Zuckerberg didn’t literally get told to "f*** off" in a room with Xi Jinping. **That was a rhetorical point,** and I’m obviously not claiming Xi personally sits down with Western tech execs like it’s a donor dinner in D.C. The broader and more important point—one you ignored—is that Facebook made very real efforts to enter China and was completely rebuffed. The 2016 Mandarin-speaking charm offensive and high-level meetings with Chinese officials, including a LITERAL photo-op with Xi The result? Zero traction. No market access. No compromise. Just a wall. You say it's "dangerously simplistic" to sum it up that way, but what’s more simplistic is pretending that China's rejection of foreign platforms is purely about ecosystem differences or content regulation. China's digital protectionism is deliberate. They didn’t just reject Facebook; they shut out Google, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram...The hell???? As for your suggestion that Meta could launch “an Instagram-like site” if only it jumped through the same hoops as Chinese companies, let’s be real: those hoops are part of the strategy. The "laborious rules and regulations" are gatekeeping tools designed to make sure no foreign company ever clears them. If you think it’s an equal playing field, explain why no U.S. platform has managed it in two decades?????? You’re trying to paint my post as conspiratorial or oversimplified, but I’m highlighting something most experts in trade, IP, and diplomacy agree on: China’s market is systematically closed, and the U.S. business world is obsessed with prying it open.

EntrepreneurBehavior

Not sure why you're getting down voted. All of this is right. CCP steals IP from every US/foreign company they allow to do business there. Well know fact.

Strange-Objective436

When they IP bomb your whole neighborhood to stop you from creating an account

Strange-Objective436

Try being back from weekly IP neighborhood perma bans

SquatDeadliftBench

I say this with all due respect but everyone here is absolutely misunderstanding what he is saying, largely because is doing a terrible job explaining himself, his approach to fixing the problem is messy, and many people are unaware of how terribly China is playing double standards. At the moment China is and always has been what Trump has turned America into: Closed. There are insane restrictions on foreign investments and no respect for international IP. I lived there and I thought I lived in a fictional land where every successful foreign business was knocked off with 0 or little presence of that knocked off business. The opposite was true until Trump came into office. They literally let in like 25 American movies a year, or some restrictions like that. So, I'm thinking that every institution that has supported Trump or paid him in one way or another are doing so because they want China to open up to their products. Why else would they bend the knee? For example, the delayed Tiktok ban and these tariffs might be a way to get China to let in Facebook. Why else did Zuckerberg bend the knee? This is just one example of thousands of American companies that stand to gain trillions from a market of 1.4 billion people.

TheMysteryCheese

Mattel isn't a toy company anymore. It's an IP syndicate with verticals in film, gaming, fashion, theme parks, NFTs, and more. Barbie made more money in theatres than most studios' entire slates last year. They've got Hot Wheels movies, Polly Pocket, Masters of the Universe, and even a damn Uno film coming. It’s in Zara, OPI, Netflix, Forza, Roblox, and soon at an amusement park in Arizona A 100% tariff on physical toys? Sure, maybe that dings a few Fisher-Price units. But the real value? It’s in the stories, characters, and licenses, none of which are container-shipped from China. You can’t tariff a digital Barbie Dreamhouse or a Mattel Films distribution deal with Warner Bros. Trump’s threat is a blunt instrument trying to hit a company that has already diversified out of the way. If anything, this kind of posturing just proves how little these guys understand what the modern version of a "toy company" even looks like.

omgpuppiesarecute

> Markets are emotional. Economic fundamentals usually win long-term, but news cycles can drive short-term swings. Supply chain issues and those tariff jumps will definitely bite eventually. I like how Malkiel describes this in A Random Walk Down Wall Street - firm foundation vs astles in the air. Firm foundation is your baseline. What the business is actually worth in hard assets and IP, and deals in confirmed in the funnel. Castles in the air are the dreams and wishings of what people think the stock could be worth one day. The latter tends to take priority - after all, they're *investing* with the expectation (hope?) of growth. But when that illusion gets shattered, pricing tends to fall back down to those firm foundations.

schtickshift

My back of an envelope theory is that an average of 10% tariff on all imports more or less matches the Trump tax cuts. In reality it’s a backhanded way of switching the burden of taxation from income to consumption. At the same time it adds an incentive to manufacture domestically in order to avoid this tax altogether. It also incentivizes China to agree to stop IP theft from America if they want to remain as a supplier otherwise their business will likely all end up in the rest of Asia. That’s what I think is happening.

Apart-Pain-7923

It could be for a number of goals which could be for less reliance on China, boosting domestic production, reducing our trade imbalance, or increasing trades with other nations., I also think that China was specifically targeted because they are by far our biggest importers and they are actively working against us politically. No, the goal is not to cripple our economy, it was to level the playing field against a cheating China who has taken advantage of the US and other countries this past 40 years. They have cheated, lie, and steal IP since their entrance into the WTO. They should have been thrown out of it as they are the ones who have the most complaints against them than any other WTO member countries combined. Actually, we do have many friends. Long withstanding alliances don't just get cut in due to a change in presidents. They would rather deal with us than a totalitarian government like the CCP when it comes to trade. We also know who is backing Russia economically, so it is against ours and EU interest to continue to trade with them to the extent we do.

Heliosvector

Not to play devils advocate, but China has really been unfair in many aspects of the ways they do trade with the rest of the planet. The big one that comes to mind is their treatment of visa and mastercard. China refused to allow them into China for the longest time, even years after their promised acceptance dates in order to allow their home grown alternative to take control of the market. China also largely doesn't care about IP laws in the west. But trumps answer to this is so stupid, he might Aswell just surrender all world dominance to China like a good li'l sub bish

maha420

I work in tech. IP Theft is the #1 security consideration for the usage of any LLM models. Companies realize their IP is flying out the front door because their coders are addicted to writing code with Chatbots. The trend is accelerating, and they're trying to get ahead of it. NO ONE is talking about a Spotify model. GTFO with your open source pipe dream.

robotlasagna

The IP theft issue will be handled just as it was with music and streaming. Content creators will get some small licensing fee for submitting their work used to the train the model. Or they can opt out.

maha420

So you're saying the multi-trillion dollar tech companies are buying/renting their own infrastructure to run their own LLMs, eh? Isn't that what this whole AI datacenter trade is about? The concern is about IP theft.

dvdmovie1

> I just don’t understand why Netflix is trading over $1000 a share and stocks like WBD or DIS are much cheaper. PARA is up about 21% since going public.... in 1990. That is not a good record and if you look at the long-term record of Warner all the way back before the spin to the original IPO, it's not good either. Smaller pure play media cos (LGF.A, AMCX) have been obliterated since they went public. You had a business that was entirely hit driven and very cyclical. Now you have a business where the cable channels - which used to be at least a decent business - have become melting ice cubes and have either been spun off (Comcast, where they only kept Bravo) or have resulted in billions of dollars of write-downs. Last year: "During their second quarter earnings report on August 7, Warner Bros. Discovery announced an $11.2 billion including a $9.1 billion write-down for their linear cable TV networks. Besides the struggling linear cable networks, WBD cited the potential of losing the NBA as another reason. The WBD also reported a $2.1 billion of “pre-tax acquisition-related amortization of intangibles, content fair value step-up, and restructuring expenses” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/08/09/as-linear-tv-loses-revenue-wbd-takes-a--91-billion-write-down/) So you have a media business that used to make a lot of money on network/cable channels and those audiences have eroded away. In terms of movies, it seems like every movie costs $200M now, so that much more difficult to actually make money. Everyone of these companies thought they could be Netflix but they can't, so you have all these companies with their streaming services (Paramount+, Max, etc) that are not the businesses they wanted them to be so they are now thinking more about licensing to Netflix. Well, if you're licensing the good stuff to Netflix, that's taking offerings away from the streaming service that already isn't the business you'd hoped. There is value in the vaults but 1) I don't think it's as much as people think it is and 2) having a CEO like Zaslav isn't doing anything for the value of the IP. Zaslav is absolutely one of the most overpaid CEOs in the country. It's extraordinary what WBD pays him and what PARA paid both Bakish and the three co-CEOs that came after him. So, yes, maybe there is a point where these names get cheap enough that there isn't much downside but the continued interest in these names on here in terms of the businesses themselves I don't get at all.

Oi-Oi

I work for an engineering company that ships part to the USA for a big tractor company...we've basically just added the tariff to our final sale price. The company has to buy since we own the IP on the parts, even if they decided to try and manufacture their own dev and set up time for a plant it's not viable. For the first time in the companies 28 year history we have considered terminating a contract early, we have limited production capacity so why waste it making parts for zero gain?

avspuk

Isn't there a whole bunch of "invisibles" too, like insurence & marketing & music IP etc

Bartelbythescrivener

Remove IP and Trademarks for Peppa the Pig and Paddington Bear so my dream project where Peppa and Paddington are on the run from the detective from minority report because of their future crimes against humanity.

Immediate_Check_74

Both have companies reliant on IP which will be commoditized by AI. Have you tested Claude yet?

mhbehnke

Solidion technologies $sti, usa revolutionary battery technology. +40% at the time of posting! Tgey developed a plug and play system to get existing li ion batteries higher energy densities without having to radically change production lines! Going to be a big player with a huge amount of IP to make EVs range 2-3x

gc3

It's my gut instinct of how companies that are too tight with their IP work out. They tend to be bypassed by the market. Replace 'company' by 'country' in this case. Companies like NVIDIA know that if you have lots of users, you will keep on the crest of tech: the network effect is real. If there is an alternative ecosystem, you might be able to stay on top, but it is much harder. It is likely that forbidding trade in chips will break up the ecosystem, and eventually Chinese chips will dominate. In fact I think that is likely given current US trade policy.

betadonkey

This is a thread about Chinese theft of American IP. My comment pointed out one of the consequences of that theft is restricted access to American markets. There is no global perspective here. Also why do you keep calling me lady? What are you some kind of misogynist? Check out this champion of the worldly viewpoint trying to insult somebody by referring to them as a woman.

stevemk14ebr2

So I'll play, I'm a professional reverse engineer. There's probably a few hundred people in the whole world that could even attempt to do this. Your talking about a unique mix of software, hardware, AND reversing knowledge. That's a very unique combination. Not only is it just really hard, it's also a ton of proprietary code at multiple layers. That means even if you did find even a few people to do this, it would take a very long time. You could probably reverse engineer it to the point you understand how it works, but it's a whole different beast to use that knowledge to go an build a new implementation based on that. It is also theft of IP to directly implement a system based on proprietary details of competition you reverse engineer, China generally doesn't get scared by that, but when you're talking about Nvidia and Huawei it is relevant as Nvidia has a lot of power internationally. So, yes, you're delusional.

betadonkey

This is a thread about a hypothetical IP dispute between an American company and China. Please explain to me the global context outside of those two countries that we should be so obviously considering. You made a really bad post. One of the worst I have seen all week. Just admit that your post was bad.

rockytrh

Absolutely agree. NAFTA was fine, USMCA is also fine, it just added more protections for IP (along with a few other minor modifications). trump said NAFTA was terrible and USMCA was great when he signed it, but it was really just a PR move. Now USMCA is terrible and the next thing that's negotiated will likely be great, even though it will likely be the same thing (at best) or worse since Canada is now working with China more closely and has more leverage. I'm tired boss...

Fuehnix

Huawei making their own version of CUDA wouldn't be an IP violation, AMD tried to do it with ZLUDA but abandoned it.

betadonkey

Nvidia is a US company! The thread you are posting in is asking about China stealing IP from an American company!

betadonkey

Nvidia is a US company! The thread you are posting in is asking about China stealing IP from an American company!

FloridianHeatDeath

You’re overlooking the immense difficulty of cloning software through reverse engineering. It’s not easy. It’s among the hardest and most advanced tasks. It only gets more complicated the larger and more sophisticated a program is. Most of the IP theft China usually does is through insiders and corporate espionage. Companies in China are often forced to make local subsidiaries and have rights owned by them. That’s a very different type of theft.

It-s_Not_Important

AI is trained on existing content. Proprietary IP like CUDA’s implementation (not the public interface) are not available in the internet to train the model.

arun111b

Funny thing is, US companies are complaining long time (decades in fact) about IP theft by China but still (almost all of) those complaining companies continue to operate & in some cases expanding their operations. Because they make exorbitant profit and that’s what they care.

Chagrinnish

Making drivers that duplicates an API is not IP infringement. And if a Chinese company wanted to get into the GPU game they could use an open API like OpenCL or ROCm anyway. You should also be aware of [Moore Threads](https://www.mthreads.com/), a company in China that is producing their own GPUs. I know they have DX12 drivers, and GPUStack also supports them, but the specs for these cards are not at all noteworthy at this time.

azurestrike

Isn't China already flagrantly violating IP laws?

HeftyCompetition9218

Not really, I think this is a big risk and why Jensen is aiming hard to get Trump to recognise what’s at stake. China hasn’t adhered to IP and that influenced the chips diffusion act under Biden that now been scrapped. With Huawei advancing and China not benefitting at all from US markets there is zero reason imo that Chinese tech companies cant just copycat CUDA and sell domestic and then move into international markets

fyeeah

How will all your non-USA customers respond when they see China flagrantly violating IP laws?

SubliminalSX

The instinct to downgrade you when you’re making reasoned arguments (that people are welcome to disagree with) is mind blowing 🤯. But here are the non-Tariff barriers per AI: 1. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures 2. Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) 3. Import Licensing and Administrative Requirements 4. Value-Added Tax (VAT) as a Perceived Barrier 5. Digital and Regulatory Barriers 6. Intellectual Property (IP) and Market Access Restrictions 7. Subsidies and State Aid 8. Environmental and Labor Standards The first one is definitely the biggest commercial barriers. Many counties do not want to buy our medicated and GMO meat which lack the certification/regulations (bullet #2) to get past the bottom level regulation in the USA. Of note, the trump admin seems to think #4 is very unfair. And in a way it is unfair because it relies on the IS having a lower domestic tax rate, which makes our products less competitive abroad. But here’s where I’ll probably lose the Europeans that are still reading but you need to hear it…the true cause of the imbalance of our relationship…the reason Europe has higher taxes to fund their social safety nets so well is (in part) because America has been footing the bill for European security for decades. I know this isn’t revolutionary ideas - but your ability to not need to fund defense well has enabled the 4-8 week vacations for 1st year employees and the year long paternity leaves, etc. yes, America will likely always have less social safety nets than Europe, but thumbing your nose at the American system overlooks the easy ride your countries have enjoyed under American stewardship. While I despise Trump in many many ways, there is a lot of truth in the core message and goals.

anonymous9828

> massive protectionist policies the US straight up bans/mega-tariffs sales of solar/EV/telecommunications tech into its market, not to mention it targets apps like TikTok for bans specifically for being of Chinese origin > state sanctioned IP theft \*laughs in NSA > And no the US sells a lot of other stuff to the Chinese. such as? the US's competitive advantage in international trade is high tech, so it would reason it could reduce deficits by selling a lot of high end chips to China, which the US is the one blocking

Yankee831

China has one of the most restrictive major economies. Try selling anything there and they have massive protectionist policies. Tech transfer requirements, state sanctioned IP theft, ect.

bd2999

The AI companies are pretty much like anything else. They say they want guard rails but will fight against any rule or law in the pipe and give the same reasons for it. That is not really the reason for this but there needs to be guardrails and nobody is putting them up. These sorts of things need alot of guidance and rules. Around IP and other things. As the people behind these movements rarely have the best interest of the public or anyone at heart.

captain_ahabb

Wisely? No. But I do think there will be some deal. It'll probably mostly symbolic things that leaves some level of US tariffs in place, China "cracking down" on fentanyl and IP theft. M*GA will claim it as a victory, markets will moon, and the fundamental US-China economic relationship will be more or less what it was before. The promised economic benefits to the Rust Belt never materialize but Trump doesn't care as he won't run again.

tollbearer

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-DEYrY5u4Q&t=9s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-DEYrY5u4Q&t=9s) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68IP6lvgFs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68IP6lvgFs) A rainy night in china [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFO1rGYOhcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFO1rGYOhcA) highlight of it doing shit waymo cant even dream of I swear, peoples opinion on tesla fsd is based on pure propoganda. Go watch its actual performance. Tesla has no desire to promote it, because they want to build up as much short pressure on tesla as possible.

elgrandorado

Strong parks business, strong brand, mediocre IP execution, and mediocre M&A. They lit money on fire with the Fox acquisition, and have struggled executing on Marvel over the past five years, and have waterboarded the Star Wars IP.

Soapbox503

你他妈的刚才到底说了我什么，你这个小贱人？我告诉你，我是海豹突击队班上成绩最好的，参与过无数次针对基地组织的秘密突袭，确认击杀数超过300人。我接受过“大猩猩”式狙击训练，是整个美国武装部队的顶尖狙击手。你对我来说，不过是一个目标而已。我会用地球上前所未有的精准度把你彻底消灭，记住我的话。你以为在网上说这些鬼话就能逃脱惩罚吗？再想想，混蛋。就在我们说话的时候，我正在联系我遍布美国的秘密间谍网络，你的IP地址正在被追踪，所以你最好做好准备迎接这场风暴，蛆虫。这场风暴会摧毁你那可怜的小生命。你他妈的死定了，小子。我可以随时随地出现在任何地方，我可以用七百多种方法杀死你，而且这还只是赤手空拳。我不仅受过全面的徒手格斗训练，还能动用美国海军陆战队的全部武器，我会用尽一切办法，把你这该死的家伙从这片大陆上彻底抹去。要是你早知道你那句“聪明”的言论会给你带来多么可怕的惩罚，或许你早就闭嘴了。但你做不到，你根本没做到，现在你正在付出代价，你这个该死的白痴。我会把怒火撒在你身上，让你淹死。你他妈的死定了，小子。