Innovation, not piracy

A report in Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun said recently that the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway was a cheap copy of Shinkansen (or Japan’s bullet train network). This is second time since October that the paper has accused China of violating patent laws. On July 7, a spokesman of China’s Ministry of Railways responded: “China will never use other nations’ creations as its own, so we should not hesitate in applying for a patent”, says an article in Guangzhou Daily. Excerpts:

The Foreign Ministry has replied to Japan that the technology of China’s high-speed railway, for which it will apply for international patent, is its independent innovation. China’s high-speed trains can travel at 350 km, even 380 km, an hour last year, which is much faster than Shinkansen’s 220 km an hour. Moreover, many technical data show China’s high-speed railway to be superior, and an online article in Los Angeles Times has said China’s high-speed trains show its innovation capability.

It seems that the Japanese media are not only jealous of China, but also afraid of competition. An article in The New York Times’ website said recently that China’s most advanced technology will enhance its competitiveness in the United States and Europe, and last year General Electric signed an agreement with China South Locomotive to build a joint venture to gradually transfer China’s high-speed railway technology.

Besides, the US’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Office has cleared China’s high-speed train technology proving its global competitiveness. But to pass the inspections of international patent certifying bodies, China should provide sufficient material and data, and maintain its modesty as a large country.

The head of Japan’s transport department has rightly said that “both sides (Japan and China) should negotiate peacefully because criticism cannot find a solution”. China should aim to reach a consensus by overcoming divergence, and stick to its stance by providing facts. 

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Source: China Daily

Leave a Reply