1979-1993 & 94 Conv [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main C900 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Sooo? Posted by LIFETIMEOFSAABS [Email] (#2) [Profile/Gallery] (more from LIFETIMEOFSAABS) on Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:11:55 In Reply to: Sooo?, dref, Mon, 2 Jan 2012 09:40:25 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
I wasn't complaining. Nor was I whining to boycott GM or to Occupy GM or to vote for or against or in protest or by abstention or what have you.
I was posting about an observational epiphany I had concerning how a large company does business to protect its assets - as you said - as they see fit. It was, and is GM prerogative.
It was an interesting thought exercise and I wanted to share it. That is all.
To my point, if GM was able to use technology (perhaps that held by Saab) as a contributing investment as component to a manufacturing agreement/partnership with a domestic Chinese automaker or heavy industry manufacturer, that $85,000 Buick might be able to be actually BUILT and sold IN China so as to avoid the Chinese taxes/duties. GM will never be allowed to own its own plant in China. The only way for a foreign auto manufacturer to have a physical manufacturing presence in China is to pair up with an existing and largely "state-owned" manufacturers.
More recently, China closed its borders to capital investment as to the fundamental basis of these partnerships. They want the smarts too...
It's akin to the adage, give a man a fish - and he'll eat for one day, teach a man to fish - and he will eat for all his days.
An automaker wanting to found or grow its investment in China must now provide considerable contributions of technology to further the Chinese domestic auto industry in terms of technology transfers (not licenses - but the actual ownership of technology) and/or the establishment of research and development centers physically located in China.
So back to the Saab story...
GM was *smart* to control the spread of its technology flow into Saab by providing it with a nontransferable license. This prevents Saab from being sold to a third party and ultimately to a place where GM would lose the "SALES" value of the technology. A smart business move...and something to learn from.
Again.. this is solely an interesting observation, and ideation I threw out for discussion. It is not a complaint about GM butchering Saab, etc. That's a knee-jerk and emotional reaction.
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.