Can you elaborate on that?

You can't recruit Harvard full tenure proffessor. At least person would resign its position at University. Article was rather about lying to University and possible bribery. My thought was: is Harvard proffessor salary is so poor so it needs to look for additional job? It is most expensive University in USA.

I'm sure the university pays, or paid, him well.

Firstly, and this is by no means any form of defense for him. But when you have credentials, EVERYBODY likes to say that you are affiliated with them. Especially if your credentials are impressive. This does not seem to be the situation here.

I don't know what this guy did, thus far it seems he's been charged with lying to investigators for an official investigation. For what he lied about, sources of funding, it seems to be a potentially minor subject, but obviously it isn't if the point of the investigation is that you and others have done technically illegal activities either by accepting funding, or what you did with that funding. Considering that they're charging him with it, then there's that clear indicator. You'd think that there would be a lot of confusing details where he's adamantly denied having received any funding for an extensive time and also there would be a ton of circumstantial evidence that maybe linked him, but was not directly condemning. Or if he were protesting that this funding was not for, what the investigators alleged it was for. But there seems to be no counter claims made intended to exonerate him. Instead it seems to be very clear that he's been receiving illicit funding for quite some time, based on the story cited.

Greed is greed, and entitlement is also the same. I get the strong impression that professors performing research are involved a lot with fund raising for their research, and obtaining funding, any funding, is great. Meanwhile some of them may get strong egos and also have accomplishment agendas intended to see their research through. I'm sure it can become muddled when someone does agree to provide funding. No excuse, just can see how someone can get caught up in their goals or progress, but then once you talk about the literal things which transpired, they seem, or are, very bad.

One bribes person to access data directly unaccessible. This is stealing. Not like to steal pocket. What Chinese steal here is knowledge. They built him lab in China and gave excellent sallary in exchange for his knowledge. Knowledge gathered per years of work they obtained without any effort in one year.

Dudes arrested by FBI. SO why a question? Ever been to China? I have.

One cannot beat on hands experience.

Because knowledge was already stolen. Thief is free but this naive proffessor may spend some years in jail.
Where have you been? China is very large country and very different.

hazel,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...44e_story.html

similar,

https://sociable.co/technology/china...-of-americans/

In the case of the US government computer systems it was pretty easy for them or anyone to access the data. The servers were run by idiots who like most government workers believe no one would dare to hack into their system. So why use more than 5 character passwords?

It seems for once we all agree that China does steal technology?

I have no problem with China, or anyone stealing technology. The only drawback of such meddling is usually economic, and usurious debt slavery should be abolished anyway.
Don't punish tech thieves, punish anyone who gives out loans with interest. Harshly. Publically. Corporeally. Consistently, and with extreme prejudice.


Then there's weapon technology but two parties with tech equality (after all, in order to 'steal' tech from someone, that someone must have people who put it together in the first place) can be set apart by tactics and whatnot.

Anyway, without a completely cancerous global money system, there wouldn't be much need for planned obscolences and all that, either. Man, I really loathe usury. Really. Really loathe usury. Doesn't matter who practices it, they should be thrown into colosseums for lions to snack on.

Important distinction: They are of course free to commit usury, they should just be thrown to wild cats for it. If they win, all the better for them, now they've heroically beaten a bunch of lions using only their bare hands and feet and all that, and they get more money than they lent out.

Sweet deal if you ask me.

Would you allow Russia to steal?

There is another side to this. One of the great health problems of our age (before covid19!) is that people in developing countries often have no access to life-saving medicines because they can't afford to buy them at the prices that big pharma charges. India used to provide generic versions of many of these drugs at affordable prices for the developing world. Was this stealing?

^ valid point.

Edit: I apologize for the rest of this post. I quoted out of context & misread what Geist wrote.
I strongly disagree.
Making an informed decision to not have a problem with China is ... monstrous.
HongKong, Tibet, Uyghurs, and a whole bunch of other human rights violations that don't play in the media so well...

I was thinking like that. In big pharma what is protected is technology to synthesize chemical substance in medcine. And perhaps they offer licence for use this technology for period of time. For me sounds reasonable. Selling licences to thousand of small companies. Perhaps these companies don't have enough resources to develop technology by themselves. Or there is no need for this in terms of profit.

Your question is complex and involves several themes.

First, just because a person or a country is poor does not justify stealing. To use a politically correct term, the forced transfer of wealth from a person or country perceived of as being rich to another entity perceived of as being poor is a euphemism that hides stealing behind fancy words. This is a counter to the concept of the rule-of-law.

Second, one can steal a physical object, like a bicycle, as it deprives the owner of that piece of property. If India manufactures its own generic version of a drug and freely distributes it, that is not stealing since it is not depriving the "owner" of that property.

Third, neither a person nor a country can own a thought or a concept. So if person "A" in country "A" develops a drug and Person "B" in country "B" develops the drug independently or develops it through reverse engineering that is not theft.

In general, no. But most people would make an exception if it saves lives, because the right to life outweighs property rights.
That's what I have said too in the past (https://hrussman.neocities.org/ramblings/intelprop.html). But practically all lawyers, at least in the developed world, would disagree with us. Intellectual property is an acknowledged legal entity even though my copying of your brilliant idea leaves you still in possession of it.