Links » Crème » China’s Dollar Assets and the Persistent Myth
Links » Crème » China’s Dollar Assets and the Persistent Myth |
| China’s Dollar Assets and the Persistent Myth Posted: 24 Jan 2013 01:59 AM PST I note that Ken Rapoza at Forbes has written yet another good post on the issue of China's holding of U.S. debt. The occasion is a report issued by the US-China Business Council, which says "Nothing to worry about. Go about your business." Yes, they are a pro-China lobbying group, but as Ken says, in this instance they are right. The need for such reports, and Ken's article, however, makes me sad.
I certainly agree with USCBC. I've written about this topic numerous times over the years (see below), and even dredged up U.S. Department of Treasury numbers to show that China's chunk of the U.S. public debt is fairly minor. Ken's piece contains the usual arguments, persuasive to anyone with a working pre-frontal cortex. Unfortunately, both his and my writing on this topic is ultimately futile. This story has graduated to myth status, and that means that the spectre of the Chinese loanshark is firmly ensconced in the mind of many Americans, including I assume a large group of folks up on Capitol Hill who probably don't understand the issue all that well. How do I know? Because I've seen guys like Jon Stewart and David Letterman make jokes about it. If you can make a political joke about a complex issue like this, it means two things: 1) the topic itself is familiar to your audience; and 2) the veracity of the underlying premise is already taken for granted. Jokes about Chinese leaders coming to Washington and repossessing monuments are only (very mildly) funny if you are aware of the debt issue and actually believe that the debt holding is meaningful. For me, those jokes just piss me off as they perpetuate the myth and misunderstanding. Alas. Related Posts: U.S. Congress Plays Up 'China As Scary Banker' Story Mitt Romney Jumps the China Debt Shark © Stan for China Hearsay, 2013. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Bloomberg Terminal Design Case Ends With Settlement Posted: 24 Jan 2013 01:30 AM PST You might remember the post I wrote on this infringement case back in July. Check that one out for photos of the products in question. If you've ever seen or worked with a Bloomberg data terminal, that's what was at issue in this case, with Bloomberg claiming that the Shanghai company, Da Zhi Hui (aka "Great Wisdom"), was guilty of a trade dress infringement. Well, this case settled, and Bloomberg withdrew the complaint from the Shanghai First Intermediate Court. I'd really like to know why, but somehow I doubt that anyone from Bloomberg is going to tell me what happened.
Why do I care? It's not exactly an earth-shattering case. The Shanghai firm is in the financial data business like Bloomberg, and sells a similar service complete with desktop dedicated data terminals. The design of those terminals, including the keyboard and color-coded system, looks suspiciously like the Bloomberg design, which has been around for a long time. Your basic trade dress (brought under China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law) case. Bloomberg filed the case about a year ago, and a hearing was held by the Shanghai court last July (that's when I wrote my post on the topic). My interest here lies in my suspicion that this settlement is yet another example of "judicial mediation." My first question is why so many months went by without a judgment. July to January – kind of a long time. One article I read suggests that the court may have requested further information after the initial hearing, but come on. The case isn't that complicated, and we're talking about six months. I'm not buying that explanation. My guess? Once again, I think the court might have strongly encouraged {ahem} the parties to settle. It's no coincidence that we're seeing this case wrap up just days before the Spring Festival holiday. It's that time of the year to clear dockets, and judges can get aggressive when it comes to pushing settlements on litigants. The statements made by the parties (as reported in the articles I read) don't exactly match up. It sounds like Bloomberg's story is that the case was only withdrawn once the infringer agreed to, and made, changes to the product design. Sounds fine, although what happened to that one million USD claim for damages? Hmm. Here's a Bloomberg quote that was in the Shanghai Daily:
Right. Strange that Bloomberg doesn't say that these changes were made at the behest of Bloomberg, which makes me wonder whether the spin put out by Da Zhi Hui may be true (see below). How about Da Zhi Hui? A slightly different story. They say that changes to the product had nothing to do with the infringement case:
So the big question for me remains: did the judge force the settlement, with Bloomberg dropping the case in return for design changes? If yes, then the Da Zhi Hui statement would be pure spin. Who was the winner here? It all depends what those changes were, and unfortunately I don't have pics to go along with this. If the changes were significant, then I would assume Bloomberg is satisfied. As far as that million bucks is concerned, let's face it, in terms of a typical China IP litigation, particularly for something like trade dress, that amount is quite high. I doubt an actual judgment would have given them anything near that amount. Da Zhi Hui might be happy if those changes were minor, and of course they didn't have to pay damages, which is a bonus. (By the way, that comment by one of their in-house lawyers about the other side's legal fees (how would she know that?) is really unprofessional.) You'd think I'd be used to these settlements already, but no. I'm too curious. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2013. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Update » Links » China 精文 Crème To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Comments