The rule of law is the core technology
Sheng Hong
The US allegations against Meng Wanzhou and the entire Huawei Company are a major blow to Huawei. But its nature should not be exaggerated. For example, some people say that this is a “technical war” between China and the United States. Because Americans do not want to see China’s high-tech surpassing the United States, it is against China’s most successful high-tech enterprise, Huawei. If you think about it, if all these “crimes” of Huawei are established, the most serious consequence is that the sale of Huawei products is prohibited in the United States and some of its allies, but it does not prevent Huawei from being in China – this is the world’s largest market, and others, to sells products. If you say that this breaks the path of Huawei’s research and development, it is even more bizarre. Is Huawei’s technology really stolen from the United States? Can it be a world-leading company by “stealing”? Conversely, if the purpose of the Americans is to suppress China’s high-tech development by suppressing Huawei, it seems to be very It is ridiculous. This is to assume that Americans also believe that by stealing technology, they can become the world’s leading technology power. If the Americans really think so, there will be no American technology today; if the Chinese think that the Americans think so, then China has indeed no hope to catch up.
The development of science and technology is not based on stealing, which is very clear. Because stealing always has something to steal, it is original. So original things are better than stealing things, and the way to create original things is better than that of stealing. The reason why original science and technology can develop rely on the environment for growing. This mainly refers to the institutional environment. For a society, this includes universities and research institutions for free discussion, fair debate and open communication, including the sharing and dissemination of public knowledge, as well as the intellectual property system. For an enterprise, it is in this institutional environment to establish a R&D team, which is called “going concern” by Commons. For this concept, I said in an article entitled “Intel’s Success and Operational Institutions”, “It seems to be more appropriate to use it to describe a steady stream of ‘production’ knowledge…. The production of knowledge is a dynamic tradition is like a river that stays up all night and flows. It must exist for a long time, and there will be enough opportunities to try and error; it must have a tradition of accumulation, in exchange for the fruits of knowledge by the cost of trial and error, and avoid the try and error from scratch again; it must be open to the future, and there will be constant innovation.”
If the team that produces knowledge and its mechanism is a big river, “relative to this constantly flowing tradition, any so-called knowledge product, whether it is academic writing, drug formulation, software source code, or computer microprocessor, is nothing but like a freezed cross section of the river; any individual with innovative ability is just a wave in the river; and the production process of knowledge is just a by-product of the existence of the river, much like a ditch excavated by a large river. “So, the true technological ability or source of innovation is this “in-service organization”, and the knowledge products that have been formed are actually only the most end of this technological capability. If you steal technology, you can only steal the last thing, but you can’t steal the “running organization” and its scientific research capabilities. This will not only form your own R&D team and its mechanism, but it will never be able to go ahead. Because it is inevitable that it can be stolen, it is already outdated. The individuals in this team are not that important. Even the best people, if they leave the team and the mechanism, lack the knowledge to complement and promote them, and the probability of success will decrease.
Therefore, between enterprises and between countries, the competition of science and technology ultimately depends on institutional competition. In this case, the most important thing for a company or country is to refine its internal strength, that is, the establishment and improvement of own institutional environment and of scientific research organizations. In this way, external pressure is not worth mentioning. The question is, is Huawei a company like this? Is China such a country? If so, the US government said that Huawei and other Chinese companies are mainly relying on stealing technology to develop it. Is it not a dirty lie? It should be said that the problem is more complicated. Since the reform and opening up, China has been fully open in the fields of thought, scholarship and culture. It has established a system of university and scientific research institutions that have exempted from political interference, and has gradually established an intellectual property system. This provides a preliminary institutional framework for China’s knowledge “production”, including public knowledge and system-protected knowledge, and is also the main cause of China’s science and technology development. In 2017, the number of patent applications in China ranked first in the world, accounting for 40% of the world. Huawei is developing in such a big environment. That year, its number of invention patents authorized was second in China, reaching 3,293.What is superior to other Chinese companies is that Huawei has created its own excellent R&D team. It is a “going concern” with its own rules, traditions and people, so that new technologies can flow out continually.
However, while the new institutional framework for knowledge “production” was formed, the old system of our country did not withdraw. It redistributes the wealth that flows out of the market through financial means, and transfers a large amount of funds that have been used in the market to non-marketized uses. This is the distribution system of scientific research funds in China. Originally, basic research produced public knowledge and required a certain degree of funding from the state. Countries around the world have similar mechanisms. European countries established the National Academy of Sciences in the 17th and 18th centuries, and now countries such as the United States also have National Science Foundations. Then there is the application research with strong externalities, and sometimes it needs state funding. For example, the British Parliament has offered a reward for determining the longitude technology. The Internet is also developed on the basis of the US military network. The problem is that China’s distribution system of scientific research fund is not only ultra-large-scale, with more than 800 billion yuan per year (compared to about 200 billion yuan in the United States); and the direction is wrong, China’s national research fund uses only 11.6% for basic research (2017, According to the Ministry of Science and Technology data estimates), while 90% of the National Science Foundation of the US federal government is used in basic research.
Even the part used in basic research has a relatively low efficiency in input and output because there is no good identification and evaluation mechanism. Because the distribution of such huge amounts of money is not based on academic rules, market rules or intellectual property systems, but on the distribution rules of administrative agencies. The procedure is that the fund is applied by various research organizations or personnel and is determined by the judging committee. Due to the lack of constraint on power of the authorities in charge of the fund, the judging committees are mostly furnishings, and the competing research organizations and personnel do not rely solely on the superiority of their own research projects to obtain funds, but more to rely on their own resources in the officialdom. Prof. Rao Yi of Peking University and Professor Shi Yigong of Tsinghua University criticized that “doing good research is not as important as having good relationship with officials and experts they appreciate”. Some researchers have analyzed the scientific research situation of colleges and universities in China, and the conclusion is that, overall, “the scientific research performance of colleges and universities is not ideal, only 38.7% of the regions have reached the best state, and most of the rest are in the stage of diminishing returns.” (Zhong Jie, Chen Jingwei, “Empirical Research on the Output Efficiency of University Scientific Research Inputs”, China Science and Technology Resources Guide, January 2016).
On the surface, the number of papers in China in 2016 has surpassed that of the United States, ranking first in the world. But Professor Shi Yigong warned that there are too many “garbage” papers in China. The reason is that China’s scientific research system relies on government funds and uses quantitative indicators as evaluation criteria. As Professor Steven Cheung proposed “the law of fulfillment”, when the unit of measurement of the price is determined, the seller will try to fulfill the requirements of the unit of measurement, ignoring other aspects. For example, if the diamond is priced only in carats, the seller will not pay attention to color, cut, and flaws. If you only use the number of papers as the standard of hero, there is definitely a problem with quality. The evaluation system can of course be further evaluated by the “impact factor” of the publication, but this is just another “pricing standard” and a new round of “law of fulfillment” effect will emerge. Not only can a large number of academic journals in China be able to cite each other to improve the “impact factor”, but it will also damage international journals. Since publishing a paper in an international academic journal is an evaluation criterion, it can bring bonuses as well as job title evaluation, as well as research funds. The idea of playing international journals is a natural result.
Mu Yunqiu and Jiang Xiaoyuan pointed out that the trend of “open access” in academic journals that has emerged in recent years is essentially a benefit of academics. Although it cannot be completely denied, it is combined with China’s scientific research system, but it has formed a cycle of “willing of both.” Under this trend, international journals such as Nature, Scientific Data, Science Report, Lancet and Cell have also created “Open Access” sub-publishes to absorb silver of low-quality papers can be as high as $5,000 each. The biggest source of funding is China. It is estimated that “Chinese authors published a total of 69,051 open access papers in 2017, … the total cost of contribution is about 760 million yuan.” They pointed out that the proportion of Chinese papers in the notorious Tunor Biology is as high as 65.5%. Oncotarget is as high as 80.3%, and the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine has reached an astonishing 95.3%. It is simply a US journal tailored for Chinese authors!” (“Science Publishing Utopia: From Open Access to Predatory Journals (Second), “Reading”, No. 10, 2018)
If the national research fund for basic research is not ideal, then it will be even worse for commercial purposes. This is because basic research has theoretical ambiguity and uncertainty, and it is difficult to judge the advantages or disadvantages of scientific research. Commercial research has a clear purpose, and it is easy to evaluate from the market point of view. However, if it is distributed mainly with power and relationship, it will deviate more from the optimal configuration. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, in 2017, the government research funds of China’s scientific research institutions were about 202.6 billion yuan, accounting for 83% of all their expenditures; the government research funding of universities was about 80.5 billion, accounting for 63%.Due to a large part of government funds, 82% of research institutions and 33% of universities are used for applied research and product testing, but adopt a attitude toward basic research, that is, no practical effect, resulting in people after the publication of a paper or patent application. , no longer care; and because of the lack of market linkages between scientific research institutions and enterprises, a large number of scientific research results are more hidden behind the surface of the results, and cannot enter the enterprise and the market. Therefore, the problem of transformation of results has always been a difficult problem for scientific research institutions within the system of China. According to the “China Patent Investigation Report 2017” issued by the State Intellectual Property Office, the patent application rate of scientific research institutions in China is about 35.4%, and the ratio of colleges and universities is only 22.6%.
Enterprises are directly facing the market, and should rely more on the intellectual property system. In this respect, the performance of state-owned enterprises is far less than that of private enterprises. In 2016, although the original value of fixed assets of state-owned and state holding industrial enterprises accounted for 45% of all industrial enterprises above designated size, the human resources and funds invested in research and development accounted for only 7.4% and 2.6% respectively. What is even more shocking is that in the context of the growing R&D investment of most Chinese companies, the R&D investment of state-owned enterprises has been significantly reduced year by year. From 2011 to 2017, the manpower input decreased from 148,871 person-times to 55,692 person-years (see chart below); R&D expenditure decreased from 467,934,400 yuan to 213,367,000 yuan. The reason that can be guessed is that, first, state-owned enterprises rely more on the research and development of state-owned scientific research institutions. Second, state-owned enterprises have no incentive to research and develop. In other words, state-owned enterprises do not rely on the intellectual property system and market. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, in 2016, state-owned enterprises only accounted for 3% of all valid patents. That is to say, non-state-owned enterprises are the main force in using the intellectual property system. In 2017, the turnover of China’s technology market was 1342.4 billion yuan. The funds from the market far exceeded the funds from the government. According to the above ratio, these funds mainly support the research and development of non-state-owned enterprises.
Source: National Bureau of Statistics website.
But this does not mean that state-owned enterprises are more suitable to use government funds. In an article entitled “Does government subsidies promote the improvement of corporate patent quality?”, the author concludes that “government subsidies have a significant role in promoting the quality of private enterprise patents” but “failed to effectively upgrade the quality of the patent of state-owned enterprises, on the contrary, has a certain inhibitory effect.” This is because “state-owned enterprises and the government have a natural connection”. Because “the government controls the pricing and distributing power of key elements such as land, capital, labor, etc., state-owned enterprises are more inclined to choose to establish rent-seeking links with the government to obtain excess profits. Or rent-seeking income.” The authors also found that “in areas where intellectual property protection is more perfect, government subsidies have a more significant effect on the improvement of corporate patent quality; on the contrary, in areas where intellectual property protection is less perfect, government subsidies have an inhibitory effect on corporate patent quality” (Kang Zhiyong, Science Research, No. 1 of 2018).This conclusion can also be applied to different types of businesses. Compared with private enterprises, state-owned enterprises are less dependent on the intellectual property system, and there is also no incentive mechanism for technological innovation within them. A large number of inventions are regarded as service inventions, and only a small number of rewards are given.
This seems to be different from people’s impressions. Isn’t there a lot of state-owned enterprises that have created leading technology? State-owned enterprises have an advantage, that is, monopoly power to the domestic market. When foreign companies want to enter the Chinese market, these monopolistic state-owned enterprises use the huge domestic market as a bargaining chip to force foreign companies to submit. The key is that when they acquired foreign technology at low prices, they claimed that this was a technology of “independent innovation”. One of the most typical examples is high-speed rail technology. On the Internet in China, it is full of words that “high-speed rail is China’s independent innovation technology”, but an article entitled “On the promotion in independent innovation of China’s high-speed rail technology by government procurement ” said, “the railway department represents the government as the procurement entity. China’s huge railway equipment procurement market and railway sector are the largest and most powerful single consumers in the domestic market. These factors have strong attractions and competition to Western companies such as Siemens, Bombardier and Alstom”, “finally led to the introduction of advanced high-speed rail technology at a lower price” (Xu Wei, Pan Lei, “Kehai Story Expo Science and Education Forum”, 2011).Among them, “single consumer” “introducing advanced technology” seems to have explained the issue.
It can be argued that the claim that a certain imported technology is China’s independent innovation technology is the greed of the relevant administrative departments or state-owned enterprises in the absence of innovative capabilities. According to industry insiders, in the presence of national leaders and foreign experts (he can’t understand Chinese)，the former railway minister Liu Zhijun announced that China’s high-speed rail technology is independent innovation .However, after Liu Zhijun’s fall, there was a controversy over his approach. Regardless of the pros and cons, it is acknowledged that the high-speed rail technology was introduced from Germany, France, Japan and other countries, but the pro-Liu faction affirmed his introduction, while the anti-Liu faction slammed him for suppressing domestic independent research and development for the purpose of introduction. Pro-Liu faction said, “In order to obtain more orders, Japanese, French, Germans and Canadians are competing to push prices down.”The price is lower and lower.” “After three years, the Ministry of Railways bids for trains with true speed of 350 kilometers per hour, the price quoted by Siemens is cheaper than the 250-kilometer train three years ago, and promised to sell the whole vehicle manufacturing technology for 80 million euros, so that Liu Zhijun can announce ‘having independent intellectual property rights’ to the media.” (Kato Kato, “How does Liu Zhijun succeeded a high-speed railway in China?”) If we understand the institutional background of state-owned enterprises in technological innovation, know that they can neither effectively use the intellectual property system nor even effectively use government subsidies. The probability of introducing technology called “independent innovation” is great.
If the above discussion is correct, we can know that the development of science and technology in China over the past few decades has mainly relied on the promotion of private enterprises in the context of the intellectual property system and the market system; and the technological Innovation of the state-owned sector in our impression is more likely to be the result of “low-cost introduction of foreign technology” + “propaganda for independent innovation”. The reason why they do this is to maintain the traditional scientific research system. It consumes more than 800 billion yuan of national financial resources each year. The actual effect is very poor, but it is the cake of interest groups. Although this phenomenon has been noticed by the scientific and technological circles and the government, and it is said that the national research fund is like “Tang Seng meat”, there have been some minor reforms, but this system still stands, perhaps the result of such false propaganda. However, although this has deceived society and the people for quite a long time, it happened to give foreigners a strong impression that China’s technological development mainly relies on government subsidies and uses the Chinese market as a bait to force foreign companies to transfer technology at low prices. Take a look, this is one reason why the United States complains about China’s “unfair trade”.
However, the issues of the intellectual property rights and government subsidies presented by the Sino-US trade war can make us think about what is the problem of the government-led research system. In short, that is that it needs the result without the process, the end product without the mother machine, and the short-term visible results without long-term institutional basis. Under this dominant concept, apart from the achievements based on statistics and self-propaganda, China will never be able to advance to the forefront of science and technology; on the contrary, it will be criticized by other countries on the basis of misunderstanding. The solution is to reverse the concept of putting the cart before the horse. This is a traditional Chinese view. There is an old saying in China that “it is better to teach fishing than to give a fish.” This sentence can also be said in reverse. “It is better to learn fishing than to eat a fish.” Fish is only the result of fishing, and intellectual property is only the result of the institutional structure that makes it. Broadly speaking, this “institutional structure” is the rule of law. Why? Because it provides all the institutional conditions for knowledge production and intellectual property. Such as personal freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of communication, property security, judicial justice, academic tolerance, open information, free enterprise operation and intellectual property protection.
The most characteristic of the “all institutional conditions” of the rule of law is that it has nothing to do with any particular purpose, and it is naturally seems that it is not directly related to technological innovation. However, this is the biggest advantage of it. As Hayek said, the core of the rule of law is a set of “rules of just conduct”. One of the conditions for the working of this set of rules is that it does not target any specific purpose, so it is abstract, universal, and generally fair, and can also become an environment of environment for technological innovation .He said, “The ‘values’ which the rules of just conduct serve will thus not be particular but abstract features of an existing factual order which men will wish to enhance because they have found them to be conditions of the effective pursuit of a multiplicity of various, divergent, and unpredictable purposes.” It is precisely because of this characteristic that the function of the rule of law, in the overall and long-term perspective, is the nature that best promotes all aspects of humanity’s purpose, and easy to be ignored by the utilitarian. To compete in science and technology by means of violating the rule of law is to win small games at the expense of losing big games. It is their violation of the rule of law that makes our science and technology will never lead. If the human wise man has already told us this connection, if we are still dull and ignorant, then we cannot always blame the ancestors.
Law in English means natural law, including the rules of nature, as well as the rules of human society. Scientific and technological innovation must also follow natural law, otherwise it will be inefficient. In short, the basic resource of technological innovation is the human brain, and the most fundamental mode of technological innovation is to form an institutional structure that can maximize the spark of wisdom in the human brain. The human brain is the most unpredictable resource. We don’t know what kind of whimsy it inspires from whose head. However, this is the original intention of “innovation.” If this is the case, this institutional structure must be the most inclusive, allowing exploration in all directions; the most impartial, the most accurate match to the contribution; the most efficient, all potential brains have the opportunity to burst inspiration. This is an academic system with fair exchange and without restriction on discussion, a market system that allows innovators to work according to usefulness, and an intellectual property system that allows innovators to get a fair return. Under this institutional structure, people don’t know who will be the next Newton or Einstein, Edison or Jobs; but people are convinced that the innovators emerging under this institutional structure will certainly go far beyond the imagination of planers based on existing knowledge.
However, as mentioned above, the problem of China’s science and technology innovation system is precisely that there are too many resources allocated by the government, and too few resources are allocated by means of academic rules, markets and intellectual property systems. This is not only a problem of inefficient resource allocation, but also corrupts scientific research groups, allowing them to focus more on power and relationships than on scientific research itself. One more problem is that the system itself becomes a cake for those who have the power to decide. They may know from the beginning that it is ineffective, but it will bring huge benefits to themselves. These people are the ones who have power. They will not only promote the reform of this system, but also reduce the proportion of resources allocated by power, but will continue to expand it. If there is no restriction on power, and power itself is naturally expansive, this distorted scientific research system will be difficult to reform, because once the size of the national research fund is to be reduced, the power role in the science and technology evaluation system will be constrained. The boycott of the relevant power department. The rule of law is intended to limit power. Because “rule of law” is the rule of law, and rule by men, that is, everyone, including the most powerful, must obey the law, and the rule of law is the panacea for healing this ailment.
To rule the rule of law, it should not be used as a tool to achieve the current purpose, but to pay attention to the generality of the rule of law, the impartiality guaranteed by legal due process, and the predictable long-term stability. The so-called “general” refers to the full exercise of intellectual property rights, relying on the complete system and comprehensive environment related to the protection of intellectual property rights. This is the institutional structure covering all aspects of society. This is because a citizen or enterprise is the main body of intellectual property. If the personal safety of the citizen or the property rights of the enterprise are not protected, the benefits of invention and innovation will not be protected. If we see that personal freedom or corporate property rights are not protected, we also think that intellectual property is virtually unprotected. Even accidentally, this lack of protection of human rights and property rights directly hurts the scientific research itself. For example, Li Ning, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, is suspected of embezzling public funds. No matter how the judicial decision is made, the most important thing is that the case has been dragged on for a long time. Since 2014, Li Ning has been detained and has not been released on bail according to law, so that the defendant can bear the cost of judicial inefficiency. It is a violation of personal freedom. Therefore, when we saw that the Chinese government responded to the Meng Wanzhou case and the two Canadians arrested were not on bail pending trial, they must think that this is actually the same as Li Ning’s experience and damaging China’s technological innovation.
Second, the purpose of the rule of law is a fair ruling. Although the Coase Theorem assumes that when the transaction cost is zero, the judge’s arbitrary ruling will lead to the optimal allocation of resources, but Coase pointed out in his famous paper “Social Cost Issues” that in the real world where the transaction costs are positive, the fair ruling by the judge has an important impact on resource allocation. Thus, a fair ruling is also an important factor in ensuring the optimal allocation of research resources.T o ensure a fair judgment, the most important thing is to ensure that the legal due process is followed. In China’s reality, these due process are often not implemented. If the court ruling is often made in advance by the “Political and Legal Committee”, it violates the principle of the judge’s independent and unintervined trial (Article 113 of the Constitution); and as the “TV confession” that is not uncommon in China, it violates the principle of “no forcing any person’s self-incrimination” (Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law).Article 33 of China’s Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that criminal suspects “have the right to appoint defenders” from the very beginning, but after the Chinese government detains two Canadians, for a long time their family members have not been allowed to visit them and they are not allowed to hire lawyers. In connection with the case, that the outstanding scientists and technology entrepreneurs, Chu Jian, he was in the detention house for nine months, “it is stipulated that he cannot meet anyone, including lawyers”, we can know that this is just a part of violation of the general phenomenon of legal due process, this is the harm to the Chinese people through hurting foreigners. It goes without saying that this includes the destruction of China’s technological innovation and its environment.
Third, the rule of law needs to give people long-term and stable expectations. Only making people believe that law is still valid in the future, people will use it as the standard to decide the current action. Some economic historians attribute one of the reasons for modern economic development to “detour production”, that is, the cycle of production becomes longer, including the innovation cycle, which requires longer-term investment decisions. The significance of statute law lies in the fact that the basic rules are announced in advance, giving people a general expectation. In our courts, people can’t sue for unconstitutional behavior, and the Constitution cannot support everyone’s long-term expectations of the Chinese legal environment. Article 35 of the Constitution stipulates freedom of expression, but in reality the creation and publication of academic journals are severely restricted, and the book box is still subject to review and licensing. Article 41 of the Constitution stipulates freedom of communication, but unconstitutional Internet firewalls block platforms like Google Scholar. Academic journals that I have subscribed to abroad have also been lost for four consecutive issues. Therefore, not only the written Constitution can not give people a stable expectation, but also directly damages the information environment of scientific research. The government often replaces the law with opaque policies for the current purpose, regardless of the long-term stability of the law, thereby making things that undermine the expectations of the law. When we see such problems as pointed out by the US Government’s Article 301 Investigation Report, we will not be unfamiliar for its involving infringement only to US companies, Chinese companies also seem to have known the case.
With such an understanding of the Meng Wanzhou and Huawei cases, the correct approach should be to fight under the rule of law. We must strive for the rights of Huawei and China, while we must respect the principle of the rule of law. The so-called “rule of law” refers not only to the principles of common law, but also to the principles of Chinese law. From the point of view of the text, there is no big difference between the two. The only difference is the implementation aspect. On the principle of bigness, there are independent trials, presumption of innocence, no doubts, no self-incrimination and other principles. In the procedural, there are defendants who have the right to hire defenders, have the right to be released on bail, and so on. However, the Chinese government’s move is basically an action outside the legal due process, attempting to win a single game through extra-legal pressure; and the Canadian and American governments’ moves are within the legal due process, which will experience procedure verification and win a long-time victory. The results will be very different. The so-called “technical war” in the way of violating the rule of law actually destroys the basic environment for the development of science and technology, and ultimately leads to the failure of the “technical war.” Therefore, putting Huawei’s efforts into the legal due process will not only increase Huawei’s chances of winning, but also improve the institutional environment for China’s technological development. We have seen that Huawei has taken actions within the legal process, including accusing the “political motives” of the Meng Wanzhou case, including counterclaims against the Canadian government and the US government, which are all worthy of recognition.
When people say that Huawei is facing a “technical war” between China and the United States, it seems to pay more attention to the end products of the intellectual property system called “core technology”, and seriously underestimates the intellectual property system and the rule of law itself which guarantees the system effectiveness. .Lao Tzu said, “The great way is the simplest”; the same, the great way will be obvious. Paradoxically, the end products of knowledge are often secretive, with a wide variety of categories, and require payment of fees; and the most important institutional conditions – the rule of law, is clear and open to the world, the rules are simple, and can be given free of charge. However, the fact in China is that the rule of law knowledge without patent protection is full of houses, but people do not want to implement it; and the end-knowledge products with intellectual property protection are fascinating for people to catch. In fact, if you want core technology, the key is outside the core technology. Although China has established an intellectual property system and made great progress, in 2017, core patents only accounted for 1.6% of the total authorized amount, equivalent to 9.76% of the US core patents (China Merchants Securities, “Comparison of Chinese and American patents in all aspects: Chinese patents are catching up, July 23, 2018).The gap should lie more in the rule of law environment. Some people may say that in the initial stage of China’s technological development, the best strategy is to use ready-made technology. Even so, China is now at a turning point – are they to continue picking the fruits of other people’s trees, or planting trees by themselves?It’s happened that stupid Americans are forcing the Chinese to plant trees. Let us turn their trick to our own use.
March 22, 2019, at Fivewoods Bookroom
March 29, 2019 published firstly in FT Chinese and China-review Weekly
Nature of Rights 