What's new

Russia refuses to sell arresters for Chinese aircraft carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.
typical chinease!!!:china::china:

only a chinease can proud on such clones!!!

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------



hacking and reverse engineering rocks!!!!!!!:tup:

others spend billions of dollars in R&d but chinease spend billions on hacking and reverse engineering!!!:china:
typical indian, hahaha they do think that we develop our econ or tech by hacking sth. hahaha too young too simple, sometimes
naive.:tdown:
 
.
and india cant do either?

they can do these..

01773.jpg

10.13_holyegg_funny_pics_41.jpg

fpdfp_S5xA5NU3653.JPG
 
. .
shame on u indian bc u even cant copy bullets,hahaha. U dont have industry.:cheesy:

They cannot copy but they can steal :

How Indian thieves stole nuclear technoloy from Canada/US


Once a thief always a fu(king thief.

Candu: The Canadian Nuclear Reactor | CBC Archives


An uninvited guest has joined the nuclear club, and fingers are
pointing at Canada. On May 18th 1974, India detonates a 12-kiloton
nuclear explosive in the Rajasthan desert. It was built using
plutonium from a research reactor donated by Canada in 1956. The
explosion prompts fierce criticism of Canada's nuclear exports, and a
wall of excuses from officials in both Canada and India. Canadian
officials say they couldn't stop it. India denies it was even a bomb.

The nuclear device was built using plutonium obtained from the
40-megawatt Cirus research reactor, a gift from Canada. It was donated
under the Commonweath "Colombo Plan" aid program, which sought to
promote economic and social development in South and Southeast Asia.
The gift helped pave the way for future reactor sales: Canada sold
India two Candu reactors (in 1963 and 1966), and they now have a
number of Candu clones.

The Cirus reactor (which was not a Candu) was modeled on the Chalk
River NRX reactor. It was donated on the condition that it only be
used for peaceful purposes – so India claimed their 1974 explosion was
"peaceful" and would help them in industries such as mining.
India referred to the device as the "Peaceful Nuclear Explosive" or
PNE. It was also called "Smiling Buddha."
 
. .
d first one is epic!!

and d last two are great!!! (with just one motor-bike thay can carry more than 10-12 person)

d much less budget they can do this as well !!!:tup:

Chandrayaan-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i wouldn't brag about that moon probe. it was a failure from beginning. the piece of junk was on fire burning many sensors and died before its designed life time...lol..yeah yeah i know american sensors did some useful things before it died out. it not yours..don't forget whole spacecraft was failing from the beginning since it entered earth's orbit...your yindoo boys were red faces all the way, remember?:lol:
 
.
typical indian, hahaha they do think that we develop our econ or tech by hacking sth. hahaha too young too simple, sometimes
naive.:tdown:

after clt+v of others Best Tech. and producing and exporting them in mass(some of them r really Best in Quality:lol:) what would happen with economy???

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

i wouldn't brag about that moon probe. it was a failure from beginning. the piece of junk was on fire burning many sensors and died before its designed life time...lol..yeah yeah i know american sensors did some useful things before it died out. it not yours..don't forget whole spacecraft was failing from the beginning since it entered earth's orbit...your yindoo boys were red faces all the way, remember?:lol:



pity on u "false flag"!!

Chandrayaan finds water ice on moon | India Insight
 
.
typical indian, hahaha they do think that we develop our econ or tech by hacking sth. hahaha too young too simple, sometimes
naive.:tdown:

What would you call this?

Mercedes C vs Geely Merrie 300
mercedes-c-vs-geely-merrie-300_4YI_PakWheels(com).jpg


Daewoo Matiz vs Chery QQ
1955880_f260.jpg


Opel (Vauxhall) Frontera vs Landwind
the-chinese-automakers-prefer-to-copy-03.jpg


Rolls-Royce Phantom vs Hongqi HQD
rolls-royce-phantom-vs-hongqi-hqd_7ZW_PakWheels(com).jpg


[Toyota Prado vs Dadi Shuttle
the-chinese-automakers-prefer-to-copy-01.jpg


BMW 7 vs BYD F6
bmw-7-vs-byd-f6_RP3_PakWheels(com).jpg


Nissan XTrail vs Greatwall Sing
nissan-xtrail-vs-greatwall-sing.jpg
 
. .
Shame on you guys....you have even copied SLUMDOG INDIAN BIKE PULSER
toi.0_WVP_PakWheels(com).jpg


Original Pulser
originalpulsar_QZR_PakWheels(com).jpg


Chinese Gulser
Gulsar186.jpg
 
.
they can do these..

Or they can do this :

Indian train travelled hundreds of miles in the wrong direction before anyone noticed
Indian train travelled hundreds of miles in the wrong direction before anyone noticed | thetelegraph.com.au

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

indian theft/hacking exists, but negligible in d world!!!

we either buy or develops our own!!

negligible because Western Media are told not to report them by their own Government. The reason is because the West needs India's help to contain China.
 
.
Or they can do this :

Indian train travelled hundreds of miles in the wrong direction before anyone noticed
Indian train travelled hundreds of miles in the wrong direction before anyone noticed | thetelegraph.com.au

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------



negligible because Western Media are told not to report them by their own Government. The reason is because the West needs India's help to contain China.

China bullet train derails, 32 killed - World news - Asia-Pacific - China - msnbc.com
 
.
Shame on you guys....you have even copied SLUMDOG INDIAN BIKE PULSER

India Patent Rights and Wrongs
India Patent Rights and Wrongs - Health - AEI

India promised to protect intellectual property when it signed up to the World Trade Organization's rules in 2005. Yet recent court decisions suggest the country still has a long way to go before property rights are truly protected.

Last week, Swiss drug company Novartis announced it would appeal a recent decision of the Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board to deny it a patent on its anti-leukemia drug Glivec. The Board claims Glivec is not patentable under section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which states drugs have to advance "efficacy" of treatment to qualify for a patent.

This finding is worrying for several reasons. First, the Board--which is populated by two judges and an official from the Kolkata Patent Office--found Glivec to be both novel and inventive and an improvement over older formulations of the drug. But it argued that Novartis has not demonstrate "significantly enhanced efficacy." The Board failed to set a clear rule for how it will determine this "efficacy" standard going forward, making it difficult for companies to know if it's worth the effort to go through the patent process.
Like all democracies, India has to deal with domestic lobbies arguing for rules which benefit them against the common good; the fact that product patents did not exist until 2005 was directly due to lobbying by domestic companies that wanted to copy foreign products.

Second, the Board argued Novartis should have included all materials in the original patent application and disallowed any new information on efficacy to be submitted by Novartis. Since this application was made in 1999 and the extra demand of proof of "enhanced" efficacy only became law in 2005, this additional demand is clearly unreasonable. This retrospective application of the law is probably in violation of World Trade Organization rules. Novartis could urge the Swiss government to bring a complaint under WTO law against the Indian government.

Third, the Board has made drug patents a political issue by arguing that granting Glivec a patent would lead to "public disorder" because the drug is expensive. Shamnad Basheer, professor of Intellectual Property Law at the National University of Juridical Sciences at Kolkata, argues: "One ought to draw a distinction between the grant of a patent and the subsequent use [or] abuse of a patent." In other words if the Indian government believes Glivec is too expensive, it could cap its price directly or drive competition by allowing generics firms to produce the drug. All of these methods have costs, but at least they are legal. But New Delhi has no legal authority to deny a patent on pricing grounds.

Novartis is not alone in its Indian patent travails. Another Swiss company, Roche, is about to appeal to the Supreme Court over the continued denial, most recently by the Delhi High Court in April, of its ability to exercise its patent on its lung and pancreatic cancer medication, Tarceva, without competitors' copies on the market. The Delhi Court found in April, much like the Board did against Novartis, that Tarceva was old knowledge and not worthy of a patent. It's unclear how the Supreme Court will rule. A decision is expected later this year.

India is a democracy and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government can't order the judiciary to rule one way or another. But Mr. Singh can remind the public and the courts that India signed up to the WTO's intellectual property rules back in 2005, and that those rules attract capital and innovation to India. Like all democracies, India has to deal with domestic lobbies arguing for rules which benefit them against the common good; the fact that product patents did not exist until 2005 was directly due to lobbying by domestic companies that wanted to copy foreign products. Mr. Singh stood up to these lobbies then, and he must do it again now. Some local firms will certainly benefit if Novartis is denied a patent and no doubt will lobby for the Board's ruling to be sustained by the high court.

India has benefited greatly from pharmaceutical investment over the past decade, largely because domestic and foreign companies believed their inventions would be protected. India has enormous potential for drug development, not least because it has a large, diverse, English-speaking population. The country also boasts many excellent local companies, such as Piramal and Ranbaxy, as well as international drug firms like Novartis and Roche. Both local and foreign firms are developing drugs that will benefit Indians and foreigners alike. The Board's Novartis decision puts this kind of investment at risk.

Novartis' appeal will be heard later this year. The court may uphold the rejection of Glivec's patent, but it should strike down the Board's damaging precedents of retrospective application of fact and other incorrect readings of the law. If it doesn't, both local and foreign drug companies may find that the cost and energy devoted to discovering cures for diseases isn't worth the effort--at least, in India.
 
.
Or they can do this :



negligible because Western Media are told not to report them by their own Government. The reason is because the West needs India's help to contain China.

so much propaganda i can presume!!!:laugh:
 
.
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom