Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Chinese Scientist Admits To Stealing Chip Research

Posted by Zonk on Sun May 14, 2006 09:25 AM
from the do-you-want-to-make-money-sure-we-all-do dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A prominent Chinese scientist, one of the founders of the chip manufacturing industry in the country, has admitted to stealing his research." From the article: "Chen Jin, a dean of Shanghai's prestigious Jiaotong University and the leader of a government-funded high-tech research project, was dismissed from his university posts this week and stripped of other government titles and perks. The government also said that Chen had been permanently banned from taking part in any government-funded science projects. In a statement Friday, Jiaotong University--one of the nation's elite schools--said, 'Chen Jin has breached the trust of being a scientist and educator. His behavior is despicable.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xshare (762241) on Sunday May 14 2006, @09:31AM (#15329245) Homepage
    What are the chances that this guy just did something against the Chinese Government's wishes, and so they faked this whole scandal. I mean, TFA makes it seem like the Government is in this a lot more than the blurb makes it seem so.

    Meh, maybe I'm just too paranoid. Anyone know more about this? Is that a possibility?
    • Meh, maybe I'm just too paranoid. Anyone know more about this? Is that a possibility?

      Yeah it's possible but it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Lets ruin this guy's carreer while at the same time ruin any credibility of a product that works that was created legitimately?? They Chinese government would have to be idiots to do something like this. They have enough problems with intellectual property issues.
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      That would make China admit that they were wrong, and i don't believe that's how the chinese government works.
      • China admit that they were wrong, and i don't believe that's how the chinese government works.

        I think that applies to just about every government. When was the last time you heard any government admit it was wrong. The only time this tends to happen is many years after the fact and even then you they won't really admit THEY were wrong. They always have some excuse or other person who the true blame lies with.
        • About 4 years ago now Libya renounced their backing of terrorism in the 80s (and 90s) and said they'd like to return to the world community. And since it was Ghadafi in charge then and now, he had no weaseling to do. He just said he was wrong.

          It does happen. It takes a lot of humility to do it, which is why we're unlikely to see the US admit wrongdoing soon. On anything like, say, the Cuba embargo.
        • Admission (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Sunday May 14 2006, @07:27PM (#15331388)
          An interesting off-topic little factoid: the government of British Columbia, the province in which I am occasionally proud to live, is considering passing a law that would make it easier for businesses, prominent individuals, and the government to apologize. It's kind of cool if you think about it -- consider how many matters can be resolved quickly and painlessly if one party just says "I fucked up, sorry dude." A bit of goodwill goes an amazingly long way.

          The problem of course is the potential legal/financial liability that goes with that, which is what this new law would eliminate. I read that there's a lot of interest in such a law in many parts of the US as well. Could we be entering a time when governments start to be a bit more honest about their screw ups?

    • No way (Score:5, Informative)

      by cyfer2000 (548592) on Sunday May 14 2006, @09:50AM (#15329311) Journal

      From what I have known, this guy applied government research funding, but developed nothing because he knows nothing about chip design at all, and failed to find any expert would like to work for him, then he bought several chips from Transmeta and Freescale, removed any brand information on those chips, and printed their information on those chips, then showed those chips to the public as their products.

    • It is much more indideous than that. China has an international reputation for having a lack of respect for patents or copyrights. Reguardless of you opinion on "intellectual property," they copy research results and produce product at a much decreased cost because they do not have to pay for the R&D. (I am sure there are other factors, but that is the most significant to this story.)

      China knows this, and wants to divest the responsibility from the state. How so best to do this than to blame an in
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evilviper (135110) on Sunday May 14 2006, @01:40PM (#15330099) Journal
      What are the chances that this guy just did something against the Chinese Government's wishes, and so they faked this whole scandal.

      Zero chance.

      This is CHINA we are talking about here. They don't need to fake anything. If they want him gone, he's gone... nobody will ask questions. No reason is necessary.

      Besides, this isn't exactly a surprise. From the first minute this story hit the presses, people were speculating that this is exactly what happened. China isn't exactly known for discouraging this kind of thing, either.
      • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 14 2006, @01:35PM (#15330075)

        Plagiarism and fake research have become rampant in China, and are eroding people's trust in academia, Ren Yuing, a member of the Councillors' Office of the State Council, told the recent meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the top advisory body.

        He cited a recent survey of 180 PhD degree holders, of whom 60 per cent paid to be published in academic journals; and about the same percentage copied others' work.

        Based on my own experience working with a visiting scientist, this seems to be a problem in Korea as well. I did alot of work with this scientist that yielded some interesting results at the beginning. This scientist went on to do other research while I wanted to continue probing our initial experiments. Eventually, I stopped working with this scientist because of their methodology (tossing out data that didn't agree with the hypothesis, abusing statistics to make conclusions, misrepresenting the methodology period) and desire to make a huge breakthrough in the field.

        This is one datapoint though, so I am generalizing alot. What makes me suspect that there is a problem in Korea is that I came to find out that, somehow, this scientist had published these results in well-known Korean scientific journals. This disturbed me and my colleagues because we didn't want our names anywhere on those papers as they represented the worst in research. Not to mention the fact that they were just an abuse of the trust people have in scientists. We've since severed relations with this scientist, but we shudder at what was going on. It simply was not good science and should never have been published. We suspected bribes or connections.

        I've not had similar experiences working with Taiwanese or Japanese researchers though. While I've always been aware of problems in China (and these news reports simply reaffirm it), the research papers produced by Taiwanese and Japanese researchers have generally been quite good. I'll also point out that my old advisor did research with a Korean researcher who was apparently very good, though I never worked with him directly and I've worked with some talented Chinese scientists, so this shouldn't be used as a pretext to devalue the contributions of all Chinese or Korean scientists. It should be seen as a need to start examining what's wrong in those countries with respect to science.

        And yes, I am posting anonymously out of professional concerns.

  • by x-guru (653854) on Sunday May 14 2006, @09:52AM (#15329315)
    In an interview this morning, Daffy Duck agreed with Jiaotong University.

    "Indeed, his behavior is despicable", said Mr. Duck.
  • Shocked! Shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sqlzealot (553596) on Sunday May 14 2006, @09:57AM (#15329328) Journal
    IP theft in China reminds me of Casablanca:

    -"I am shocked, shocked to find gambling in this establishment!"
    -"Your winning's sir."
  • Anyone following the press sees almost daily reports of Chinese industrial espionage circles working around the world. It is not just chips, but formulas, software, manufacturing techniques, and many trade secrets.

    China is not the only country that does this. There have been serious incidents with Russia, Japan, France, etc.

    However, in the case of countries with which the US does not have a defense treaty, wholesale theft of technology and related trade secrets risks strengthening the military establishment of those countries. This makes it a national security issue for the US.

    Unfortunately, even if exposed, the chances in the US of getting caught, prosecuted, and having to pay for industrial espionage are so low that for all practical purposes US technology is free of charge. You probably have a better chance of winning the local lottery than getting punished.

    The problem occurs when foreign espionage organizations target private [non-military related] companies that do not have adequate security measures.

    In terms of this particular case, the reaction of the Chinese government is out of character to its past actions, which have somewhat ignored wholesale violation of intellectual property rights, and have encouraged massive collection of economic and technical information from the West.

    There is no way other than the use of industrial espionage to explain the short amount of time China took in developing its space program and supercomputer capabilities.

    In this chip case, the reaction seems motivated by one of two factors: 1/ it is an emotional reaction from someone higher up who felt duped by the scam of the "researcher", 2/ it is a politicized attempt at public relations -- one of those highly publicized "crack downs" that periodically emerge from China before everything gets back to normal.

    It's really a non-event. There are probably dozens of other laboratories working right now on other pilfered technologies. In the long run, however, China is graduating enough engineers to surpass the West within about 25 years. In which case, all of this will seem rather transitional in nature.

  • I'm sorry, but I've seen too many first-hand examples of industrial espionage performed by Chinese engineers and scientists to find this at all surprising. I'm just surprised he admitted it, that's all.

    And just to be clear, I'm not referring to American citizens who happen to be of Chinese extraction, or individuals who emigrate to the U.S. with the intention of becoming American citizens. I mean personnel that come here on a visa, work for a few years or go to school here, and then take what they have learned back home. That doesn't bother me in and of itself, but often this includes taking things such as research, engineering drawings and prototypes that don't belong to them. Other nations do this as well, of course (including us) but few on as grand a scale.
    • Re:IP Theft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@nosPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday May 14 2006, @09:58AM (#15329334) Homepage
      We see the same thing in the United States when government gets involved in economic development activities.

      Actually the United States government's involvement in economic development activities is one of the primary factors of the late 20th century computer revolution.
      • Re:IP Theft (Score:5, Insightful)

        by electroniceric (468976) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:00PM (#15329691)
        If I had mod points, I'd give both parent and grandparent credit for insightful statements. The claim that politicization of the economy is responsible for bad and bogus ideas making it through is almost certainly true. The Army Corps of Engineers is a shining example of that. Not only that, but economic development money almost always involves government picking the winner somehow - that's a tough pill to swallow, and something we should always be wary yet. At the same time, there's no doubt that government investment has been critical to the development of nearly every technology we use today. Barring a few altruistist or self-proclaimed visionaries, private capital simply does not have the incentive or wherewithall to make 20 year investments. The only conclusion I can come to is we need good government - transparent, accountable, and well overseen. And that takes a lot of effort from the citizenry, which why the notion that government is fundamentally incapable and hence should be dismanteled frustrates me so much. Government is only as capable as we make it, and it may be less efficient at delivering goods and services, but it's about the only choice we have for making critical long-term investments, so we'd better work on making it as good and efficient as we can.
    • Because China is trying very hard to become an economic super-power. Copying technology from other nations won't get them that, because they'll always be playing second fiddle. Instead, they want to produce technology that exceeds the rest of the world so that they can take the place of the United States and Europe as the source for all new technology.
      • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday May 14 2006, @11:24AM (#15329585)
        Well, it worked for Japan, that's for sure.

        The first step is to catch up. That's usually done by having foreign companies manufacture in your country. The second is joint ventures, where foreign companies offer the money, you create a company in your country and manufacture in license. That's also already achived.

        Next would be to have your students and your "brain power" catch up, this is either done by sending your students abroad or by hiring high class teachers. China will most likely opt for the latter.

        This worked for Japan, and the only reason that Japan didn't simply take over the world economy is that Japan lacks two essential factors: Manpower and resources. They are quite limited in space, and thus workforce, and there are almost no resources on their islands.

        It's very different with China. And once they completed step three... good night Europe.
      • You're saying because some people abuse property rights nobody should have them?

        You're saying that becuase some system calls something a property right, that it is. Please give me your address so I can have bubba pick you up pounce you in and deliver you to me as a slave property.

        Please give me your home address. I think your right ot own property is "fairly stupid" and I should be free to take your stuff. Give me that freedom you hateful bastard!!!

        Please feel free. You can take a *copy* of any pr

    • Re:IP "borrowing". (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Haeleth (414428) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:07PM (#15329708) Journal
      Not a big surprise for a country that doesn't respect intellectual property.

      The People's Republic of China respects intellectual property more than many nations, though admittedly it is not as paranoid about it as the USA. The PRC is a member of WIPO, and has strict IP laws. Nor is there any discrimination against foreign IP: Chinese courts regularly rule in favour of US companies whose copyrights and patents are being infringed on by Chinese companies.

      You may be thinking of Taiwan.
    • Not a big surprise for a country that doesn't respect intellectual property.

      And in 50 years, they'll be at the top of the world in research, industry, and science because they didn't.

      At least we'll have our lawyers.
      • Re:IP "borrowing". (Score:5, Informative)

        by Phragmen-Lindelof (246056) on Sunday May 14 2006, @09:20PM (#15331761)
        And, what about the US? V-2 rockets. German adaptation of the Dutch schnorkel? US seizure of German submarines because Germany lost the war. There's a LOT of shit (technology) THIS country acquired merely through the advantage of having "won" the war. Moreover, the US is NOT innocent of industrial espionage.

        It is rather funny that you fail to mention the work of American Robert H. Goddard, from whom the designers of the V-2 obtained important ideas. As a NASA web site states:
        Goddard's work largely anticipated in technical detail the later German V-2 missiles, including gyroscopic control, steering by means of vanes in the jet stream of the rocket motor, gimbalsteering, power-driven fuel pumps and other devices. His rocket flight in 1929 carried the first scientific payload, a barometer, and a camera. Goddard developed and demonstrated the basic idea of the "bazooka" two days before the Armistice in 1918 at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. His launching platform was a music rack. Dr. Clarence N. Hickman, a young Ph.D. from Clark University, worked with Goddard in 1918 provided continuity to the research that produced the World War II bazooka. In World War II, Goddard again offered his services and was assigned by the U.S. Navy to the development of practical jet assisted takeoff (JATO) and liquid propellant rocket motors capable of variable thrust. In both areas, he was successful. He died on August 10,1945, four days after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan.
        Goddard was the first scientist who not only realized the potentialities of missiles and space flight but also contributed directly in bringing them to practical realization. This rare talent in both creative science and practical engineering places Goddard well above the opposite numbers among the European rocket pioneers. The dedicated labors of this modest man went largely unrecognized in the United States until the dawn of what is now called the "space age." High honors and wide acclaim, belated but richly deserved, now come to the name of Robert H. Goddard.

        NASA [nasa.gov]
    • by Alef (605149) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:16PM (#15329736)
      Come on now moderators. How can a troll like this be modded insightful?

      The Soviet Union was very advanced in several fields of science (especially theoretical physics and mathematics). They were the first to launch a sattelite orbiting Earth (Sputnik 1 [wikipedia.org]), first to put a living being in orbit (the dog Laika [wikipedia.org]), first to put a man in space, first dual-manned flight, first space walk, first to land on the moon (with a probe), built the first space station (Salyut 1 [wikipedia.org]).

      Just to name a few things.

      • Especially in regards to the Soviet space program, while I do want to give credit where credit's due, I think it's also worth pointing out the number of Soviet failures and accidents; it seems to me that a lot of their progress can be attributed to playing fast-and-loose, and taking chances that NASA wasn't willing to take. Occasionally, these paid off, although even before their economy collapsed, they had fallen behind to the point where I don't think their development methodology was exactly validated.

        Not to mention, their space program was jump-started by a lot of German rocket technology that they crated up and took East with them. (The U.S.'s was as well, we got a lot of personnel, although the Russians got some of of the best hardware and facilities.)

        Of the examples you cited, Laika was an arguable failure (the dog died after only a few hours, long before it was supposed to and without getting much useful data back), Salyut 1 is notable, although I feel it necessary to point out that the crew never made home alive -- not strictly a problem with Salyut itself, but you have to wonder if the pace they were working at didn't contribute to lack of QC elsewhere.

        Sputnik 1 is definitely a landmark and worth of recognition, and in general the Soviet space program had a lot going for it, but it also had a rather alarming rate of failures. So in considering their progress, one has to consider the cost it was earned at. (I'd say the exact same thing about some other areas of technological development, for instance, their submarines.)