Q: Between introduction and innovation, where is the boundary of intellectual properties? For example, it took China six years to develop the high-speed rail technologies that cost developed countries 30 years; but Chinese technologies are internationally criticized as "copycat technologies." What is your view?

Tian: There are two sides of international discourse. The output of our high-speed rail technologies is really based on the introduction of technology. However, we have followed the internationally accepted standards of patent assignment, and spent a huge amount on patent fees. Otherwise, others would not sell their technologies to us. As far as I know, our technologies have made additional improvements on the originals.

One aspect is that the demand of our huge domestic market accommodates a variety of innovations of high-speed rail technologies; another aspect is that we have built our own system integration platform over the original technology platform and made innovations based on the above mentioned platform. Currently, we have approved over 900 patents on domestic intellectual property rights.

I cannot agree with the international criticism, which doesn't conform to reality.

Innovation has two parts: One is other's foundation and the other is our own innovation. Why should China be blamed? Our high-speed rail technologies are being patented, standardized and becoming international standards. So far, there is no dispute of intellectual property rights with foreign companies.

To break the existing Western monopoly on world industry, the key is innovation, instead of imitation and plagiarism.

In fact, although our country has a complete system of high-speed rail technologies, some key components still need to be imported. This is also a new starting point of the cooperation between China and the world.

Q: What are the two sides of international discourses on intellectual property?

Tian: These developed countries take away a large amount in intellectual property fees, but they are constantly complaining we haven't paid in accordance with international standards. The US said that they lost $3 billion because we haven't protected the intellectual properties. I have to say that China has paid more than $300 billion to the US in order to use intellectual properties.