The fact is that improvisations are prevalent across the world. The WTO recognizes a second patent (on an improvisation) if it is an important, technically advanced form with considerable economic significance compared with the first patent.

The US is not the only country that criticizes China's technology innovation policy. The recent charges leveled by some other countries against China relate to the building of super-fast railways in the country and center on a take-and-give issue. China accords great importance to the availability of technology as a condition for inviting foreign companies (and other entities) to participate in construction projects, which are partly or fully financed by domestic funds.

When China obtains technology from foreign entities, it offers them access to the country's markets according to WTO rules. Yet foreign countries accuse China of transferring technology forcibly from foreign suppliers and not keeping its promises of opening up its market.

We have to step back from the dispute to see the bigger picture of an old order or balance in the technology trade, in which China has paid a huge amount of royalties for technology import and that the US is still suffocating China by restricting on hi-tech exports to the country. China's indigenous innovation will no doubt affect the old order and tip the old balance as technology exporting countries, more or less, lose their leverage in the market. And if they cannot rebalance the situation by adjusting their domestic policies, they will only end up complaining against and criticizing others.

Ironically, the countries that accuse China of malpractice are the ones that have the greatest stake in China. No wonder, any industrial move by China makes them alert. In essence, the fresh accusations against China's technology development plans reflect the China-threat theory that the US and some other Western countries have been propagating for long.

Contrary to what the US Chamber of Commerce says, China is far from being a leader in enacting international rules. This is evident in the anti-China provisions in international trade rules. What we can foresee is the complaining countries invoking international rules to rebuke and restrict China's technology policies. But this is not new, as proved by the years-old anti-China trade measures to curb its exports and the hue and cry over the yuan's exchange rate.

Since China, to a large extent, reserves its government procurement and services markets, it can and needs to develop its technology according to WTO rules. Else, Chinese industries may be dwarfed once the country's markets open up fully.

China understands the sense of urgency and crisis reflected in the US chamber report. Yet since the WTO rules haven't fully pried open the government procurement and services markets, a proper approach for the complainants would be to drop their stereotyped notions and cynical criticism of China's technology innovation policy. Instead, they should view the entire process from a development perspective and engage in talks with China in order to build mutual understanding and trust.

The author is director of Policy Review Division of WTO Affairs Center in Beijing.