It’s their key backstop against stagnation.

Over the past few decades, China has pulled off the greatest heist ever. More than 600 billion dollars every year is stolen from right under the noses of Americans, but the government is unable to do anything about it. China has been prospering, but Americans have been suffering, having their ingenuity turned against them. The problem is this: U.S. trademarks, copyrights, and patents have no authority over the Chinese government or businesses.

Nothing can stop China from taking any intellectual property (IP) you have. Your writing, music, inventions, or anything you create is protected domestically, but there is no legal action the U.S. government can take against sovereign nations regarding IP.

Because there are no ramifications for the theft, China is open about taking advantage of Americans. According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “China leverages its entire legal and regulatory system to coerce technology transfer or steal IP” (House.gov). China has laws that restrict foreign participation in every sector of their economy. When a company wants to do business in China, China requires “them to instead form joint ventures with Chinese companies before they can gain market access” (FBI).

China dedicates time and resources to stealing IP from Americans, but what’s in it for them? After stealing IP they can then sell American products/inventions/art to other countries throughout the world. Right now, China is trying to avoid the repercussions of heavy investment in infrastructure and real estate (WSJ). Their current economic model is crumbling and they need a stimulant to revive and rebuild it.

China still wants to become a “comprehensive national power” (FBI) through its economy. What they have discovered is that one of the best boosts in innovation is other countries’ innovations. For China, “the theft of up to $600 billion per year of U.S. IP is central to the Chinese Communist Party’s ‘generational fight to surpass the United States in economic and technological leadership’” (Columbia Business Law Review).