This take ignores the history of the development of intellectual property rights, convention signatories and WTO.
Many, many things were unregulated in the past but ARE regulated today.
If they wanted to maintain a policy of ignoring IP, etc., they they should not have joined the WTO and signed conventions that hold them to obligations.
These organization and conventions set the stage or provide the framework and law by which signatories are bound.
Your argument amounts to: hey, the US and Brazil and the Middle East and many other countries used slave workforces in the past therefore it’s okay for China to do the same today, else they are at a developmental disadvantage.
In any event, I'm quite sure any patent [had the concept existed] would have run out by the time they were adopted elsewhere.
Many, many things were unregulated in the past but ARE regulated today.
If they wanted to maintain a policy of ignoring IP, etc., they they should not have joined the WTO and signed conventions that hold them to obligations.
These organization and conventions set the stage or provide the framework and law by which signatories are bound.
Your argument amounts to: hey, the US and Brazil and the Middle East and many other countries used slave workforces in the past therefore it’s okay for China to do the same today, else they are at a developmental disadvantage.
In any event, I'm quite sure any patent [had the concept existed] would have run out by the time they were adopted elsewhere.