> "Xu Guangyu, chairman of Beijing Kaiwen... runs K-12 schools in China and said Westminster could provide the knowledge to help upgrade arts education for his students."
There you have it. The Chinese company is buying the college specifically for the purpose of using their intellectual property. Is this not the same thing they have been doing buying US businesses? Purchasing the know-how that they lack to gain a competitive edge, while preventing MNCs from competing fairly in the Chinese domestic market?
It's a smart strategy and seems to be working. Not fair though, and shouldn't be allowed.
US does the same, no? Think of all the Chinese researchers, athletes and business people who immigrated to US and brought their knowledge and resources to America.
In the end, the more countries and firms compete on expert knowledge, the better it is for knowledge workers.
No, the US doesn't do the same. You're comparing two very different things. Property is/can be owned, people are not and should not be. China & the US do not own their people or their brains, even if they'd like to.
Both countries technically allow people to move to and work in them, from other nations. It's practically impossible to become a citizen of China as a foreigner. The US grants a million green cards per year.
China almost entirely disallows outbound technology/IP/property/asset tranfers. That's the overwhelming point of contention.
There you have it. The Chinese company is buying the college specifically for the purpose of using their intellectual property. Is this not the same thing they have been doing buying US businesses? Purchasing the know-how that they lack to gain a competitive edge, while preventing MNCs from competing fairly in the Chinese domestic market?
It's a smart strategy and seems to be working. Not fair though, and shouldn't be allowed.