Foreword:

China is not without high technology.

At the end of 2005, the hartson Institute, a think tank of the federal government of the United States, published a report on the scientific and technological competitiveness of "China has made a big leap forward", which concluded that China began to narrow the gap with the United States in science and technology and military affairs. Even this led to China's "threat theory of science and technology".

But how to transform high technology into productive forces is the mission of an era.

Since the torch plan was implemented in 1988, China has invested a lot in science and technology, but how many scientific and technological achievements have really been applied to production and service to the society, instead of being shelved?

On the other hand, we hope to "exchange market for technology and policy for capital" and introduce foreign capital in order to improve technology and management level. But how much technology spillover did this get? At present, many high-tech industries are controlled by multinational companies, and the overall technological competitiveness and innovation ability of China enterprises are still not optimistic. As a result, Professor Lang Xianping of the Chinese University of Hong Kong declared that China's high technology was just an "illusion".

Is Professor Lang too pessimistic? Or ...

There is no practical significance in discussing this problem. Diagnosing the cause and seeking a way out is the right way.

The Business School of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the 2 1 Century Business Herald jointly held the World Balance, Zheng Guohan, member of the Strategic Development Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, and Xu Yan, a professor at the Business School of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Lin Zhisheng, deputy director of IEMBA course coordination center in hkust business school, Feng Hai, deputy director of Industrial Promotion Bureau of Beijing Municipal People's Government, Cui Guanjie, assistant general manager of China International Economic Consulting Company of CITIC Group, and Tong Jie, chairman of Sichuan Zigong Changzheng Machine Tool Co., Ltd., expressed their opinions and had a heated discussion on the current situation and problems of high-tech industries in China. The forum was hosted by our reporter Li Zhenhua. (Text/Ma Juan)

Our reporter Ma Juan Li Zhenhua reports from Beijing.

"Professor Lang is wrong"

Moderator: Not long ago, economist Lang Xianping said in his new book "Science Fiction-Evaluation on the Development Strategy of High-tech Enterprises in China" that "there is no real high-tech enterprise in China, so there is no real high-tech enterprise in China". In fact, since 1988, a large number of high-tech enterprises have been developed and expanded with the support of the state. What do you think of Professor Lang's assertion?

Zheng Guohan: I think Professor Lang is only an expert in finance. He is bold enough to judge whether China has high technology. China and shenzhou spaceship can go into space, and only three countries in the world can do it. It is untenable to say that China has no high technology. However, it is a fact that China's high-tech industry is relatively backward compared with other developed countries.

What is a high-tech industry? There is no clear definition abroad, which probably means that R&D investment should account for a high proportion, or that it is a technology-intensive industry. Some industries in China have entered the forefront of the world, but the scale is not large. For example, Cisco has regarded Huawei as an international rival, which shows that Huawei can't be far from it. If Cisco is a high-tech enterprise, so should Huawei. Therefore, we have to admit the fact that China's high-tech industry is definitely relatively backward, but it is too much to say that it is completely absent.

Feng Hai: Professor Lang's statement is too arbitrary. It is ok to say that China does not occupy the high-end in some areas and is inferior to the United States in some areas, but it is totally not worth refuting to say that China has no high technology. Yuan Longping's rice cultivation technology is second to none in the world. The Chinese character laser photographing technology invented by Wang Xuan also accounts for 85% to 90% of the world's market. There are also hydrogen bombs, atomic bombs and aerospace technologies in China. If these are not high-tech, you can only say that you don't understand high-tech.

Xu Yan: To judge whether there are high-tech industries, we should first look at whether there are high-tech products, because if there are high-tech products, there will be high-tech industries. In terms of products, China produces and exports a large number of high-tech products such as computers and communication equipment, so high-tech industries definitely exist.

However, in high-tech industries, especially IT industries, the international division of labor is becoming more and more clear, with upstream, midstream and downstream divisions. The upstream has intellectual property rights, and the downstream is assembly. It is meaningless to discuss whether there are high-tech industries in itself. What we should discuss is the position of high-tech enterprises in China in the industrial chain. Is it more focused on the low end?

What is the equation of innovation? Innovation = invention+commercialization. Commercialization requires an accurate grasp of the market, and enterprises must master two points to develop, one is knowledge about technology, and the other is knowledge about demand. China's high-tech products are constantly growing to meet the market demand, which shows that although China enterprises are weak in technology, they have a deeper understanding of the demand.

Brand is the key

Moderator: There are basically two ways to obtain high technology: independent research and development and introduction. For a long time, we hope to acquire foreign advanced technology by introducing foreign capital. However, the technology flow brought by foreign direct investment has not been transformed into China's endogenous technological capability. What do you think of the relationship between foreign investment and technology? If China wants to develop its own high-tech industry, should it change its previous strategy?

Cui Guanjie: Whether to develop independently can be explained through the development process of optical fiber in China. In the 1980s, the communication industry was a bottleneck industry that restricted the development of China, but at that time, China couldn't even make optical rods. If optical fibers were imported, the international price would be very expensive, and the national strength at that time might not put the transformation of communication on the agenda until 20 10 years later. So the country put forward to independent research and development. Up to now, China has made light sticks and pulled out optical fibers, and the international average price of optical fibers has dropped to more than 1,000 RMB per kilometer. It is said that "the price of optical fibers is equivalent to that of instant noodles". This shows that the acquisition of infrastructure technology cannot be transferred to you by multinational companies, and your own strategic industries must be developed on your own.

Xu Yan: The R&D investment of foreign enterprises in China may be equivalent to their investment in China. However, the technology generated by this R&D is only used within the company and serves his own company, and it is not extensional. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect foreign capital to transfer technology to China while investing.

Although some of them have transfer agreements during cooperation, with China's entry into WTO, the bargaining power of China government may be less and less, so independent research and development is the most important means. Of course, we should also rely on some external forces to cooperate with multinational enterprises, join the international value chain and connect with the international community.

Tong Jie: Whether it is the introduction of capital, technology or independent innovation, there should be a distinction between the main and the auxiliary. 1995, my company cooperated with British enterprises with a history of 100 years to produce machine tools. At that time, we talked about the introduction of prototypes and technology. In the production process, we found that what he took was a machine tool variety that entered the market recession. After a period of cooperation, we developed a new machine tool with a changed structural form based on its technical design principle, which achieved technological transcendence and applied for the national excellent new product development project in 2006. This shows that by introducing cooperative projects to promote independent research and development, the development cycle of new products can be shortened and the goal of catching up can be achieved.

In addition, in the process of independent research and development, even if the technology of China can't surpass the most advanced, it can also form a kind of competition for it and increase the bargaining power of China.

Moderator: For example, in the automobile industry, we have introduced foreign capital for more than 20 years. Up to now, except for emerging automobile factories, such as Geely, and several largest automobile factories supported by the state, we can't all build cars independently. Even if we can build cars, there is not much market. What is the problem?

Feng Hai: There is still something that can't be done to exchange technology with the market, especially in the automobile industry, so we have to admit that there is a gap in introducing digestion and absorption. Now, when China talks about automobile cooperation with foreign enterprises, it will talk about the joint construction of R&D centers, and the R&D centers will jointly deliver cars, but the foreign parties are resisting this article. After a hundred years' development, multinational companies have formed a set of market operation system with high technical operation level and many experiences worth learning.

Xu Yan: Many technologies need to be accumulated continuously, which is a very valuable asset for enterprises with a long history. It takes Nokia more than 20 days to get a new mobile phone version, mostly because Nokia has mastered the cumulative technology. I believe the same is true of automobiles. Sometimes a little improvement in technical design will have great advantages. In this respect, China can't catch up with foreign countries in a short time.

Cui Guanjie: Actually, China is constantly rethinking the road of automobile industrialization. First of all, it is the localization rate, which is the only national regulation for the automobile industry. The localization rate is the percentage of value, and then the number of parts is determined. By introducing models, the development of parts is promoted and further research and development is carried out by ourselves. There is nothing wrong with industrial policy in theory, but then the system problems led to the inability to develop the automobile industry. Recently, the question under reflection is whether China needs to develop its own automobile industry and own its own brand. For example, Chery, the engine can be foreign, but the brand is its own. With the development of automobile industry today, the characteristics of internationalization are becoming more and more obvious, and its core is brand. If you don't cultivate your own brand, there will never be a China brand car.

Zheng Guohan: The automobile industry can no longer be said to be produced in any country, such as American and Japanese cars. The parts from beginning to end come from all over the world. As long as we master the technology and market network, China has the strength to form its own national brand.

Xu Yan: In the past, people thought that the assembled products were very low-end, but it was not necessarily so. Because we need to understand the market when assembling, appearance design, color and so on are very important to open the market. If an enterprise wants to survive, on the one hand, it must have technology, and at the same time, it must have a good grasp of market demand. In addition, the patent fees are not all expensive, and they can be used at will after the deadline. The key is how to integrate all aspects of technology and create new value.

Now it is an information society, and strategic innovation is often more important than technological innovation. The state has invested a lot of money to produce many patents, but it is a waste of money if the patents are not converted into products. Therefore, in the high-tech industry, it is very important how science and technology should be positioned, not only in terms of technological knowledge innovation, but also in terms of market knowledge innovation.

Misunderstanding of high-tech development zone

Moderator: High-tech industries are not supported by a single enterprise, but are more manifested in the collaboration among enterprises. What do you think of the high-tech development zones generally established nationwide? Has it played a role in integrating resources?

Cui Guanjie: At present, there are 53 national-level high-tech development zones in * * *. Now, it seems that there are some problems in the development process of the development zones. For example, some enterprises in the park are engaged in machine tools, and the enterprises next to them are engaged in printing. They have no industrial ties and have not formed an ecological chain. Later, the state proposed to establish specialized parks to form a production chain relationship among enterprises. Now it has been improved a lot, such as Zhangjiang High-tech Park and Software Science Park.

Zheng Guohan: One question to think about is, where is the real condition to set up a development park? If this park is established without conditions, it may produce some fake high-tech enterprises. Because the tax rate of general enterprises is 33%, and the tax rate of high-tech enterprises is only15%, this temptation is too great. I have done some research in Shenzhen, and there are not many real high-tech enterprises in Shenzhen High-tech Park. Developing high-tech development zones in the northwest and other places will not achieve much, and too many parks may cause waste.

Tong Jie: Actually, among many high-tech industrial parks, there are not many that run particularly well, enter a virtuous circle, truly form a high-tech eco-industrial chain and become incubators. What's the reason? I think this needs to come naturally. For example, Liushi Town in Zhejiang was once famous for its fake and inferior commodities, but now, more than 95% of low-voltage electrical appliances in China are produced in Liushi Town. There are more than a dozen factories in their factory, and the division of labor is meticulous, forming an industrial chain.

High-tech industrial parks should also have a pulling effect on the surrounding areas, pulling surrounding enterprises into the park and forming industrial clusters; Only by producing leading products and leading enterprises in the industrial chain can we stimulate the surrounding areas. For example, in the west, Mianyang's industrial economy is better than Chengdu's, because Mianyang has Changhong, and all the electrical accessories of Changhong can drive the surrounding areas and form the development of an industrial chain.

Lin Zhisheng: The poor development of high-tech parks is not unrelated to policy orientation. In the early days of reform and opening-up, the leaders of local provinces and cities all had the task of attracting investment. Under this banner, science parks were often set up to allow landmark enterprises to enter, promising a large number of preferential policies, but in the end most of them actually became real estate projects.

Intellectual property rights do not protect monopoly.

Moderator: For China, what kind of institutional arrangement is needed for the concept of independent innovation, so as to achieve a balance between intellectual property protection and enterprise innovation, which not only protects the interests of property owners, but also does not harm the creation of other enterprises?

Xu Yan: The World Bank has an index called National Innovation Index. One of the indicators is to have innovative infrastructure and innovative environment, including government policies and intellectual property protection. It has become a common knowledge that intellectual property rights must be protected. Property rights protection is not a unilateral matter, and it is related to this issue at home and abroad. In addition, it is probably not the most important thing to earn patent fees by transferring patents. What is important should be how to bundle different patents and create new values.

Zheng Guohan: In recent years, the United States has begun to reflect on its patent system, because excessive patent protection may hinder innovation. Recently, someone spoke in the U.S. Congress, and I quite agree with this view, that is, the biggest problem in the United States in recent decades is the spamming of patents. Some patents themselves have no technical breakthrough, but two patents are added together, and as a result, new patents can be obtained. There are many such examples in the United States. In some fields, patents at all levels are registered, and as long as you enter this field, you will definitely infringe their patents. In foreign countries, many patents have become a minefield, and technical barriers prevent others from using them, which involves monopoly.

Xu Yan: Technology is changing, and the laws of the past should also be changed. In the past, copying was an infringement, but now when people use a computer, they must first download the content and copy it to the computer. If strictly speaking, this is an infringement. Therefore, laws should also keep pace with the times. Now Hong Kong is preparing to discuss the issue of infringement and revise the copyright law.

Cui Guanjie: The patent law was drafted and formulated by the State Science and Technology Commission. At that time, there were two views on legislation. First, the patent law should protect the inventors' creations and their rights and interests that brought benefits to society. Second, the most important significance of patent law lies in promoting the dissemination of knowledge. But for a long time, there has been much talk about protection, without considering how to use patent law to promote the dissemination, promotion and utilization of technology.

Now China has set up an intellectual property court, and the law enforcement team is getting stronger and stronger. This must be done, but the new problem is that intellectual property protection is no longer a communication tool, but a tool to protect technical barriers. Foreigners are now putting forward a technical barrier, from technology to patents to standards, which must be met. The most terrible thing is the standard. For example, the materials used in electrical appliances processed in China will be recycled in the future, which requires degradable materials and must meet the requirements of environmental protection, but many enterprises simply cannot meet the requirements. The problem facing all mankind now is how to protect intellectual property rights under the background of globalization.

Lin Zhisheng: At the National Science and Technology Innovation Conference last year, many ministries and commissions discussed a problem. China had gone through a process of introduction, digestion and absorption before. If we follow the commitments of China and WTO, our technological innovation is very problematic, because the sources of many technologies, such as biochemical technology and communication industry, are based on foreign technologies. It is easy to touch people's property rights.

In addition, it also involves the judicial departments, including the Intellectual Property Office. What is their starting point? Whether to serve domestic enterprises or foreign countries. Many foreign companies sue for infringement when they find that China enterprises produce similar products. If it is solved according to WTO rules, many China enterprises will find it difficult to produce. The feasible way is to drag out the lawsuit. After three or five years, the product is out of date and the lawsuit will go away.

Zheng Guohan: Microsoft and IBM used to use this method to deal with the government. When the American department sued him, he paid for the lawsuit and dragged it on for five or six years. When the results were obtained, the problem was no longer a problem.

Cui Guanjie: China's intellectual property protection is backward, protecting things that should not be protected, such as Microsoft's price discrimination. Microsoft's same products are more expensive in China than in the United States. In this case, protection is aggression in disguise.

In fact, Microsoft's influence on China is not on consumption, but on IT manufacturing. It invisibly forms an industry standard, in which case you have to match it according to his standards.

Of course, after more than 20 years of reform and opening-up, China has accumulated a lot of experience, and learned to play international games. To protect what is just, we must protect what is unfair, and we can use anti-monopoly law to sanction and restrain it.

System? Technology?

Moderator: American high-tech industry first developed in two areas: the 128 highway area around Boston and the Silicon Valley area. By the end of1980s, the high-tech enterprises in the area of 128 began to decline, while the Silicon Valley area was in the ascendant, constantly moving towards a new upsurge. What does this give us? What experience can be learned?

Cui Guanjie: The successful experience of American high-tech parks is summed up in one sentence, that is, "industry follows talents and capital turns around talents". The experience of Silicon Valley in the United States is very simple. As long as talents are attracted, the industry will not be a problem. The most typical thing in Silicon Valley is that there is an entrepreneurial culture, but you can't see the vibrant feeling of Silicon Valley on the 128 highway. Many small companies in Silicon Valley don't engage in industrialization, but develop technology and transfer it first to see how much it costs, and then form an industry.

Zheng Guohan: In the United States, there is a book called Advantages of Regionalization, which mainly analyzes the different development results of these two regions, and the conclusion is the problem of business model. Early computer technology, such as

IBM, the original products were all produced by itself from beginning to end, but in order to seize the market quickly, IBM introduced Intel to develop chips for itself and Microsoft to support it. The industrial chain was thus formed. Because there are always several links where people are better than you, it is definitely not feasible to be a dragon by yourself. Many enterprises on the 128 highway have an early traditional structure, while Silicon Valley is emerging and has achieved an international division of labor.

Cui Guanjie: There is a saying that "R&D is in Silicon Valley and manufacturing is in the world".

Lin Zhisheng: My experience is that 128 Highway and Silicon Valley are two bases, one is a platform built by the government, and the traditional model manages everything through one train; The other is formed by the market, which is a platform for technical exchange and talent exchange.

Zheng Guohan: I want to make a point that Silicon Valley is formed naturally, and the late-developing countries may not be able to form spontaneously, and often need the government's behind-the-scenes promotion. For example, Hsinchu in Taiwan Province is man-made.

Xu Yan: I think one of the important factors is talent and the other is capital. In the knowledge society, people themselves are the center of innovation. Looking at the statements of enterprises now, people are usually regarded as costs, which is actually wrong. People are a kind of wealth, and how to better play their value is very important. At present, there is an unhealthy phenomenon in China, that is, many "returnees" come back and become "waiting for the sea". It should be changed to "kelp", which is a "tie" to connect China's industries with foreign industries.

Speaking of capital, China's "863 Plan" was invested by the government. Unlike the United States, it is generally a venture fund, which is characterized by clarifying the relationship between the principal and the agent, and investors can effectively supervise the technology development. In the case of government investment, because there is no specific client, the effect of effective supervision on agents at all levels of management and development departments can be imagined.

Moderator: For a long time, China has focused on domestic universities and research institutions. There are some university industrial parks around famous universities, but the high-tech enterprises run by universities and research institutions are very bad and have not played their due role. Is it that the mode of running high-tech enterprises in colleges and universities simply doesn't work, or is there some flaw in the innovation mechanism of colleges and universities, which makes the R&D function of colleges and universities fail to give full play?

Xu Yan: In the innovation system, the university is a very important part, but the role of the university should be to provide talents for the innovation system. At present, many research projects in domestic universities are only consulting projects overseas, which can be done by ordinary enterprises. This kind of project may solve the problem of teachers' income well for universities, but I am skeptical about whether it can improve the research level of universities. If the teacher's level cannot be improved through research, it is a problem how to improve the level of students he has trained. In my opinion, universities can run high technology, but they should emphasize commercialization and industrialization, because scholars are good at knowledge about technology, not demand.

Zheng Guohan: This involves the problem of entrepreneurial model. Professors in universities can inspire students in science and technology, but after finishing their studies, students still need to adapt to the market and learn about company operations. If there are professors and students from beginning to end, the chances of success are not optimistic. So this requires professionals such as venture funds and banks. In the United States, schools are not the mainstream of entrepreneurship, but only a small part. In the real entrepreneurial stage, the role of universities is not very important except for some professors in business schools or engineering schools.

Tong Jie: I think that the R&D institutions of universities do not know as much about the market customers as the people in the industry when they conduct research and development of high-tech achievements. Perhaps the results they have made great efforts to study are far from the market and customer needs.

For example, according to the problem that machinery restricted industrial development at that time, the Ministry of Machinery Industry cultivated "three big and three small" research institutes, the big one was Beijing Machine Tool Research Institute, and the small one was Landian and Nanjing Micro-motor Factory, but none of them came out in the end. Because these institutions are far away from the market, when their projects are completed and the projects are handed over, it means that they have completed all the work, and they have not thought about the commercialization of the whole results. Therefore, in the past, production, learning and research must be research-achievement-product-final market, which can be called real high-tech products, and the inspection of independent research and development products will eventually end with users.

Lin Zhisheng: The function of a university is basic research, which solves major scientific and technological problems in the industrial chain, and industrialization is not its task. The State Council is sure of the mode of production, learning and research, and this road is to go on.

Zheng Guohan: It is unrealistic for the government to hope for the industrialization of universities. The responsibility of universities lies in training talents and conducting basic research. Because universities do not have the ability to integrate, we see that the main production technologies in the world are concentrated in large enterprises, not in universities or government laboratories.

Compere: System is more important than technology, which was Wu Jinglian's view on developing high-tech industries in China a few years ago. So, what kind of system can stimulate innovation?

Lin Zhisheng: China has gone through the road of technological innovation for 20 years. Many things in the system are very good, but the implementation process is often influenced by human factors and has not received good results. For example, imported equipment enjoys the duty-free system, which is contradictory to the protection of national industries. Even good equipment produced in China, because it does not enjoy the tax rebate, has greatly killed the domestic market of national brands in the technological innovation system. Including the adjustment tax for high-tech personnel, how to manage it? In some places, it is internal inspection, and the first step is to retreat, but the government has no clear regulations.

Zheng Guohan: At present, China enterprises pay higher taxes than foreign-funded enterprises. I think it is unreasonable, which affects the competitiveness of domestic high-tech enterprises and should be abolished. Even for these high-tech enterprises, the government should give tax incentives and try to avoid rent-seeking behavior.

Xu Yan: I think what is more important is the innovation of business model and the innovation of enterprise development strategy. When Ford introduced Model T, it completely relied on the original technology, but changed a production mode, thus driving the transformation and revolution of the whole economic model. Nowadays, the number of patents in China is increasing every year, but how much can be converted into productivity? The key is cultural innovation, strategic innovation, system innovation and thinking innovation. We should prevent the misunderstanding that the innovative economy will eventually become a patent economy.

Cui Guanjie: Can China's scientific and technological innovation become an industry? The key lies in the construction of professional managers, which is very important for the construction of the whole innovation system. What restricts the development of China is not that there are too few scientists, but that there are too few professional managers who know the market.

See it online again. Is it useful?