By Ethan Watson
- Introduction
As China grows in global influence and the world shifts towards a multipolar model, perhaps no issue highlights the ongoing culture clash like the flow of intellectual property from West to East. As outlined below, China views Western, particularly American, intellectual property as a resource to be plundered for nation-building purposes.[1] American institutions, on the other hand, are far more collaboration- oriented. Just compare the 289,000 Chinese students studying in America with the mere 11,000 Americans studying in China pre-COVID.[2] This mismatch in perception could very well harm American industry and make it less competitive, illustrated most recently in the downfall of Roomba manufacturer iRobot.
- Background: The Chinese View of Intellectual Property
China is a relatively new player in technological sophistication. Still reeling from the Cultural Revolution, China instituted the Four Modernizations in the late 1970s.[3] One of these four was science and technology (S&T), and so from the start, Chinese S&T development was not a mere scholarly pursuit, but an engine of statecraft and modernization.[4] Such modernization was sorely needed—Chinese computer scientists sent their first email in 1987.[5]
The Chinese approach to S&T information is called qingbao, translated in English as either intelligence or information.[6] Such polysemy is key because “intelligence” connotes statecraft and adversarial relations, while “information” is more neutral.[7] Such doublespeak is not lost on the architects of China’s S&T information gathering matrix – Chen Jiugeng, of The Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC), has remarked that referring to “information” rather than “intelligence” would be useful in securing foreign cooperation in information sharing.[8]
China’s qingbaoxue (information/intelligence science) infrastructure is vast. By the early 2000s, China had accumulated hundreds of S&T institutes, holding millions of foreign S&T papers and other scientific information.[9] The aforementioned ISTIC collects IP on everything from engineering to management science.[10] The China Society for Scientific and Technical Information is a state-supported professional association for Chinese workers who seek out and exploit open-source S&T information.[11] The State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs, now a part of the Ministry of Science and Technology, had the explicit goal of recruiting IP-holders to come to China, and sending Chinese abroad to develop their skills.[12] The COSTIND S&T Intelligence Bureau is a military specific S&T repository.[13]
China views its sizeable diaspora population as yet another tool of IP extraction. The “two bases” policy recognizes that, while most Overseas Chinese Scholars (OCS) do not return to China, they are encouraged to pass on intellectual property to their homeland.[14] Those OCS who do return, even for a short stint, are catered to in specially designed “pioneering parks,” state-funded high-tech zones that incubate thousands of companies geared towards appropriating foreign technology.[15]
It is clear that China views the free exchange of ideas not as shared progress, but as a tool of national statecraft. The Chinese government has a vested interest in extracting and appropriating the designs, methods, and technological expertise of other nations. It’s because of this attitude towards S&T American companies like Roomba-maker iRobot risk their know-how becoming qingbao when they work with Chinese companies.
- The Chinese IP Trap Set for Foreign Companies
Many thousands of American companies, like iRobot, do business with China. Unfortunately, business ventures in China often come with a steep price tag: qingbao. Companies seeking to conduct business in China are subject to Kafkaesque licensing requirements.[16] Given the complexity of the licensing process, and the lack of clarity in how approvals are granted, companies often wind up disclosing proprietary IP to the Chinese state in an effort to remain compliant. [17]
Joint ventures are even more intrusive. The Chinese government often requires foreign firms seeking a joint venture with a domestic firm to provide IP to the Chinese partner.[18] It’s unsurprising, then, that these very same Chinese partners are often drivers of IP innovation.[19] As evidence of how ubiquitous the joint venture phenomenon is in the Chinese business landscape, the government requires joint ventures be formed for any foreign investor to enter the energy, insurance, and medical sectors.[20] Further, the auto, aviation, and education industries are only accessible via joint ventures in which the non-Chinese partner has a minority stake.[21] Coercively released IP in both situations may be reviewed by Chinese “expert panels,” including industry professionals and executives, as part of the certification process.[22] The IP may be formally passed along or informally leaked to Chinese competitors—qingbao in action.[23]
No Chinese partner organization is safe, no matter how globalized they may appear. Though Amazon-adjacent Alibaba is not per se state-owned, it is hardly a leap to suggest it may be engaged in IP transfer.[24] Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has been warm to Chinese Communist Party schemes like social credit scores and mass surveillance.[25] Tencent, with heavy investment in popular games like Fortnite and League of Legends, is also heavily involved in censorship initiatives like the Great Firewall of China.[26] The degree to which these powerful, global brands are beholden to the Chinese government’s demands, and the sheer scale of the Chinese S&T information gathering apparatus, indicates that China views IP not as resource to be collegially shared, but as a zero-sum hoarding game.
- What Happened to Roomba, and Why Does it Matter?
Now, Roomba manufacturer iRobot is on the verge of being acquired by Shenzhen Picea Robotics.[27] Picea has been iRobot’s primary foreign manufacturer for years and also happens to operate its own line of consumer-grade robotic vacuums under the 3i brand.[28] One of the contributing factors to the Roomba’s suffering performance was competition from Chinese counterparts, which necessitated price drops and increased investment in R&D.[29] In fact, all twenty of Vacuum Wars’ top robotic vacuum cleaners were made by Chinese firms.[30] Now, policymakers are even concerned that the acquisition of iRobot by Picea will pose a serious data privacy risk.[31]
Since Picea and iRobot were partners in manufacturing, it is likely that iRobot’s designs, methods, and information were disseminated among and exploited by Chinese robotics companies. The Chinese government exerts considerable influence over even the most powerful technology firms in the country, and iRobot would have had to share schematics and other IP with Picea as part of the manufacturing partnership.[32] It is hardly a stretch to see how that information could have made its way into the broader Chinese consumer electronics industry.
But why does this matter? Free-trade purists will argue that consumers are better off with twenty Chinese-made robot vacuum cleaners than with one American-made option.[33] iRobot itself may have even been fiscally better off in the short-term by working with a lower cost, offshored manufacturer. But this is a remarkably naïve and short-sighted view. That perspective only works when all parties subscribe to it—and China is far from a good-faith partner. Much has been written about the need to protect IP from a commercial or national security standpoint,[34] but perhaps there is an even more valuable boon from protecting IP: its role in the culture.
The Roomba was a staple of the American consumer electronics landscape. It came to emblemize ingenuity, innovation, and the American dream of in-home technology in the same way that the American dream included a house with a refrigerator and a dishwasher.[35] It was a quirky, fun cultural icon that everyone had heard of. Brands and technologies play a key part of any cultural landscape, but for a country whose culture is popular culture, a country defined by capitalist innovation like our own, they are even more core to our identity. Companies like iRobot and products like the Roomba are part of our social fabric, and we should protect them not solely for their material value, but also for their intangible cultural value.[36]
[1] See generally William C. Hannas Et al., Chinese Industrial Espionage: Technology acquisition and military modernization 11 (1st ed., 2013).
[2] Greg Hugh, Chinese Students Outnumber American Students Learning Each Others Language, ChinaInsight (2026).
[3] Hannas et al., supra note 1, at 11.
[4] Id. at 13.
[5] Jeffrey Melnik, China’s “National Champions”: Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei, 24:2, Educ. About Asia, 28, 28 (2019).
[6] Hannas et al., supra note 1, at 18.
[7] Id. at 46.
[8] Id. at 46-47.
[9] Id. at 24.
[10] Id. at 22.
[11] Id. at 44.
[12] Id. at 78-79.
[13] Id. at 23.
[14] Id. at 171.
[15] Id. at 163.
[16] See Sean O’Connor, U.S.-China Econ. and Sec. Rev. Comm., How Chinese Companies Facilitate Technology Transfer from the United States 8 (2019).
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at 7.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Kevin J. Hickey et al., Cong. Rsch. Serv., Intellectual Property Violations and China: Legal Remedies 20—21 (2020).
[23] Id.
[24] Melnik, supra note 3, at 30.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at 31.
[27] Roomba Maker iRobot Files for Bankruptcy, Pursues Manufacturer Buyout,
Reuters (Dec 15, 2025, 1:05 PM), https://www.reuters.com/technology/irobot-enters-chapter-11-lender-acquire-roomba-maker-2025-12-15/.
[28] Lisa Tatar, Who Is Shenzhen Picea Robotics, the Company Acquiring iRobot?, Vacuum Wars, https://vacuumwars.com/who-is-picea/#:~:text=Picea’s%20Relationship%20With%20iRobot,a%20secured%20creditor%20to%20iRobot. (last visited Feb. 10, 2026).
[29] Roomba Maker, supra note 25.
[30] Christopher White, The Best Robot Vacuums of 2026, Vacuum Wars (Feb. 10, 2026), https://vacuumwars.com/vacuum-wars-best-robot-vacuums/.
[31] Peter Pinedo, Mamdani Adviser, Warren in the Hot Seat as Collapse of Roomba Maker Shifts Data to China, Fox News (Jan. 8, 2026, 2:53 PM), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mamdani-adviser-warren-hot-seat-collapse-roomba-maker-shifts-data-china.
[32]See discussion supra Part III.
[33] See Noor ul Hadi, The Impact of International Trade on Domestic Economics: Fostering Growth and Enhancing Prosperity, Modern Diplomacy (Jun. 12, 2023), https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/06/12/the-impact-of-international-trade-on-domestic-economics-fostering-growth-and-enhancing-prosperity/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[34] See, e.g., James Edwards, World IP Day: Economic Benefits of Intellectual Property, Capitalism Magazine (Apr. 26, 2024), https://capitalismmagazine.com/2024/04/world-ip-day-economic-benefits-of-intellectual-property/?utm_source=chatgpt.com; IP and Innovation: Driving Growth Through Protection, UpCounsel (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.upcounsel.com/innovation-and-intellectual-property?utm_source=chatgpt.com.; Kirti Gupta et al., Ctr. for Strategic and Int’l Stud., Protecting Intellectual Property for National Security (2025).
[35] See, e.g., Merrill Fabry, TIME Best Inventions Hall of Fame, TIME (Oct. 9, 2025, 3:57 AM), https://time.com/7323640/25-iconic-inventions/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.; Amir Mahmud, Beyond the Roomba: The Unraveling of iRobot, a Symbol of American Innovation, More News Network (Dec. 15, 2025), https://morenews.net/beyond-the-roomba-the-unraveling-of-irobot-a-symbol-of-american-innovation/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[36] Artificial intelligence was used for the research, scoping, and outlining of this paper.