In 2002, Toyota sued Chinese automaker Geely for copying the Japanese automaker’s logo. In November 2003, a Chinese judge threw out the case. He claimed China’s trademark office had to reject Geely’s logo before Toyota could seek civil damages. The verdict provided yet more proof that China isn’t willing to lay down– or enforce– its copyright law. This lack of legal resolve is a clear and present danger to foreign automakers, and a stark warning of things to come.
Until roughly 30 years ago, the concept of private property was an anathema to The People’s Republic of China. When the country’s communist leaders decided to abandon Soviet-style central planning for a “mixed” (i.e. controlled) market economy, they eventually allowed individuals to own property and commercial enterprises. Shortly before joining the Word Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, these rights expanded to include intellectual property (IP).
Since then, the number of IP cases in China has increased by some nine percent a year. A large number of these disputes involve China’s nascent automobile industry. And no wonder. China is now the world’s second largest new car market (having passed Japan in ’06). It’s expanding at about 17 to 25% a year. Tens of millions of Chinese are trading two-wheeled transportation for four.
Given the lack of copyright enforcement and the cost of developing a new car for sale– versus the cost-effectiveness of “borrowing” designs, manufacturing, parts, brand names and logos– it’s no surprise that the country’s native automakers are flooding the Chinese market with unabashed, automotive knock-offs.
For example, the [GM] Daewoo Spark and the [Chinese] Chery QQ are sheetmetal homonyms with, get this, interchangeable parts. (Rumor has it that Chery used the Spark with a Chery logo glued on to pass government crash tests.) Even when the running gear differs, Chinese manufacturers feel free to “riff” on trademarked designs. The Honqi HQD sedan looks like an ugly[ier] Rolls Royce Phantom– for about half the price.
Again, there’s very little incentive for a Chinese automaker to avoid building this sort of “homage.” According to China’s "Supreme Court Patent Trial Provisions," copyright thieves face a maximum statutory damage of 500,000 yuan (roughly $64k). And as Toyota discovered, “creative jurisprudence” makes attempting to legally right these wrongs a difficult bordering on pointless enterprise.
Further complicating matters, Chinese law stipulates that any foreign-owned automobile manufacture must share 50% of its Chinese division with a Chinese “partner.” The pattern of intertwined ownership works in the thieves’ favor. For example, GM held off suing the publicly listed Jiangling Motors for stealing one of The General’s designs. Jiangling Motors is partially owned by SAIC, GM’s Chinese partner. Nuff said?
While China’s foreign owned automakers wrestle with copycats and clones, trying to defend their technological investments and local brand equity, Chinese automakers are busy ramping up their export business. Last month, 500 Brilliance BS6s sedans left Dalian for Bremerhaven. This week, HSO Motors Europe announced it will distribute Brilliance vehicles in France and Switzerland.
Although Geely’s exports are currently restricted to Syria, Egypt and Latin America, the Chinese automaker plans to export 400k cars by 2010. The company’s recently announced deal with Chrysler to import a small Chinese-made car into the American market should account for a large amount of that business.
While many foreign manufacturers are willing to look the other way regarding IP infringement inside China, the advent of Chinese automotive exports threatens to bring the issue of IP rights to a head.
Later this year, Great Wall will export a small vehicle called the Peri to Italy. The machine looks an awful lot like Fiat's city car. With its Chinese ambitions and the obvious legal limitations within The People’s Republic, Fiat has been hesitant to take action against the Peri. But the arrival of a cheaper Panda clone on their home turf may well force their hand. It remains to be seen if a potential export backlash could dampen Chinese automaker’s “flattery.”
There is a darker side to these developments. The Chinese government’s willingness to turn a blind eye to cheap copies of foreign-designed automobiles may reflect their longer term strategy. At some point, when China’s joint venture automakers get up to speed, the government may give foreign automakers the boot, and allow their Chinese partners to assume full control. The student will become the master.
China's State Economic and Trade Commission’s tenth “Five-Year Development Plan for the Automotive Industry” predicts/dictates that "there will be two to three large automotive groups that have considerable strength in international competition. The domestic-market shares of products will exceed 70%, with some for export.”
How does that shake-out square with foreign interests? It doesn’t. Any foreign automaker that imagines itself as one of China’s Big Three better take a closer look at those clones. They may be China’s future.
I dont think you’d have to be a flag waving patriot to see that buying chinese would be a bad move.
Very informative article. The Western world seems to be banking on the premise that the God of Capitalism will somehow sway the ideology of the Chinese (which it may, eventually), but for the time being it appears that we’re being played for suckers…
This is only the same thing that went on when Toyota and Honda came to America. Now Toyota is scared of China's auto exports just like GM was afraid of Japan's auto exports 20 years ago. Its an ongoing cycle.
Perhaps the Chinese are simply taking their copyright cues from the 20 million American teenagers who have downloaded music illegally in the past month.
The Japanese have always been known for producing good quality products. Even in China and Taiwan, Japanese products are regarded as being better quality.
So The Chinese might be copying Toyota’s brand but not their quality control. I bought a Natuzzi sofa that was supposed to have been made in Italy and returned it because it had numerous defects and was really manufactured in China. So until they get their shit together, the last thing I want to buy is a Chinese made product with 10,000 moving parts. And I don’t want to contribute to China’s growth, simply because when a billion Chinese start living like the rest of us in the west, the planet is going to turn into a garbage dump real fast.
Matiz and QQ don’t crash the same, beware:
http://paultan.org/archives/2006/02/18/chery-qq-crash-test/
I believe the emerging Chinese Automotive industry will be better for the consumers in the long run. Increasing the competition will reduce prices and keep the big automotive companies on their toes.
I believe that Consumer Reports will have to bring back the “Not Recommended” rating for the first wave of Chinese autos…
Just another way foreign governments screw any imports, yet we give all the advantages to foreign companies coming in.
I hope Geely clones a Ferrari. $10K F430 please.
I see Consumer Reports having to go back to their test of the Yugo to remember how to write a review that “Not Recommended”.
And yeah, you gotta really be indifferent to the future of the US to consider buying a Chinese automobile – as well as being so cheap that quality doesn’t matter.
Sounds like the early 70’s when the Japanese moved into the American market.
The little fish is being eaten by the bigger fish being eaten by the biggest fish.
American companies don’t see an issue with doing business with a communist country? This is a huge gamble. Either China turns into the largest Democratic nation in the world or they nationalize everything and kick the foreigners out when they don’t need them anymore.
China is going to continue to grow as a world power, eventually surpassing the USA; do we really want to help them do it?
Fidelity fund would catorgize me as ” very aggressive ” if I were to invest in China. We all know that “very aggresive ” is just another way of saying very risky!!
I do not think that this is at like when Japanese cars came into America. If it was, Toyota would just be exporting cars directly into Chine instead of a “joint venture” with China FAW Group Corp. These “joint ventures” that all car companies who want to sell in China must enter into are a double-edged sword. Actually, instead of a double-edged sword, it’s more like a time bomb.
Like the editorial and others have said, China is using their massive market to lure the foreign companies to set up “joint” operations where they pass all their design, technology, and know-how to the domestic side of the joint venture. What I expect to happen is that as soon as the operations are up, producing semi-decent cars and exporting them, the foreign sides will be booted out and all their intellectual property stolen.
But hey, at least we’ll be able to buy $6,000 cars at Wal-Mart. Good thing too, because there will probably be less people around who can afford anything more expensive.
Personally I believe that US Intellectual Property law has gone too far the other way, with some companies making it their primary business to find ways to sue other companies.
For example, the original US copyright law provided for protection of “maps, charts, and books” for a period of 14 years with a one time ability to extend for another 14 years. Thanks to Hollywood lobbying this has now become the creators life PLUS 70 years.
One of the ways the Chinese are running circles around much of the rest of the world is that they really don’t believe in this fictional creation called Intellectual Property. The best solution is probably somewhere in the middle, but in this case the competition from China is a good thing.
By the way, most of us are reading this article on IBM PC Clones. Would the world be a better place if only IBM had continued to be the supplier of PCs?
And the really scary part is that we don’t have much power to control their imports or uphold our copyright laws because China owns so much of our debt that they could virtually destroy our economy by calling in their markers. Thanks to our current administration’s drunken sailor spending habits and debt accrual, we have no way to stop this tide of Chinese junk from swamping us. China will play nice only so long as we look the other way and continue buying their products.
If China continues to abuse the IP laws, wouldn’t they run into major problems when they try to export autos into the US?
Why would the US allow cars to be imported from a country that doesn’t respect IP laws?
Actually, why doesn’t the US force China to clean up its act by threatening punitive duties against the goods presently being brought into the country?
Yeah, I know, Americans want access to cheap consumer products…….
So what’s new. We either all learn to play nicely together or we fight. It’s our destiny.
Where can I get one of those RR Phantom knockoffs for half price, now that would be a deal and probably the only way I could ever get one.
Right Gottleib. We either trade goods and services or we trade bullets and bombs. It has always been the case throughout human history. If we do not engage others in wealth creation/trade, we will have a Hatfield/McCoy type relation. If we engage in trade, it becomes more like sibling rivalry…Sure you might want to fart on your brothers head but you have no intention of killing him. This is like the US relation with France.
IP laws really dont work anyway. By the time you go to trial and get a verdict, the property has been obsoleted by a better mousetrap anyway.
Oh, and China cant call in their debt markers without destroying their own economy.
If the Chinese Gov’t tryed to steal joint venture property, it would immediately cause capital flight and tank the Chinese economy before they could say “Opps”. Take a look at what is happening in Venezula with the thieving-socialist monkeyboy Chavez. Capital flight/inflation.
Do you guys know that China is the only market from which GM, Ford, Chrysler make a lot of money? Is it fair that we make a lot of money without sharing a little obsolete technology?
If Americans don’t do this, Europeans and Japanese will. And it is actually what has happened in the past 30 years. VW has been the NO. 1 in China for 30 years, only recently surpassed by GM.
I was really surprised at the amount of auto manufacturers in China: http://www.chinacarforums.com/
Way more then I thought there would be or were.
Luther, how does China deciding to redeem U.S. government bonds tank their economy? What are you talking about? They can re-invest that money in any other economy they want to invest in. The only reason China carries our debt is so the dollar doesn’t crash completely and destroy their main export market – us! But if their domestic consumer markets grow to the point where their businesses can be largely sustained by that domestic market (much like the U.S. in the 1950’s – and this is a point which everyone thinks they will reach sooner than later), there is no reason for them to continue to prop up our government’s excesses and that is when the shit hits the fan.
It’s the price of doing business in China. Nobody put a gun to the big automakers and forced them to set up their joint-ventures. They (presumably) had their eyes open.
Half the price of a Rolls Royce Phantom is still a small fortune. Actually I looked up the pictures and while the Hongqi is very similar, it’s not an exact copy.
Top 10 Copycat Cars
I work for an OEM that is pushing low cost country sourcing (China/India). I can’t wait for the day when I have to move sourcing to the USA because China will refuse to make parts for customers outside of China.
The foreign companies can do so much, but sooner or later they the Chinese will need to do some research themselves. The Chinese government is interested in social stability. If this means sacrificing IP, so be it. It takes second seat to thier ultimate objectives.
IP protection in the auto industry has always been dicier than most, largely because so much depends on the “look.” China is way behind the big car producing nations in terms of quality and it is on quality that we must continue to stay ahead.
Justin,
What you touch upon is incredibly important. I have written on the topic on several occasions, and discussed it with western manufacturers.
They look at you as if you’re an idiot at the party – “Huh? Have you seen the low price of labour in China? No regulations! No anti-pollution measures! 16 hour workdays! Six days a week! Shut up, will you!”
We’re closing down our manufacturing capability. We’re given away our intellectual property. We’re even moving R&D to China and Asia — and as you write, we seem to be expecting that somehow China will become a non-totalitarian state in the process.
http://www.artofwealth.net/2005/02/industrial-revolution-version-20.html
http://www.artofwealth.net/2005/08/china-factor.html
Thanks, Justin, for keeping this issue off the back burner. IMO, in about 5 years, TTAC will be able to say, “We told you so!”
One major difference between Japan’s emergence in the world’s auto scene and China’s: the Big 3 didn’t erect modern manufacturing facilities in Tokyo to help build Toyopets, facilities which were then forcibly handed over at no charge.
To continue to build on Stimpy’s scenario – imagine when the US economy tanks to a point where the US middle class can’t afford to buy as mush Chinese product. We no longer are an important trading partner (nowhere near as important as their accelerating home market of a billion customers), our market leverage disappears, and our currency becomes less valuable to the Chinese than the paper it’s written on.
Will anybody want a half-priced Chery Suburpan (that looks eerily like a GMT900) then?
Humourless wrote:
“Perhaps the Chinese are simply taking their copyright cues from the 20 million American teenagers who have downloaded music illegally in the past month.”
Hehehehe…
Waitaminute, I was being faecetious. It’s really not funny.
I worked for a company that builds here in the US and exports to China via a local distributor. A Chinese customer called into the US to get a quote on our stuff, posing as a local user. He became irate at the lower cost that was quoted, and didn’t care about tariffs, conversion rates, freight costs, etc. He sent me an email stating that if we were going to treat him this way, that they would take a sample of our product and just build it cheaper in China, then export it and ruin us. It was truly weird and more than a little frightening.
Until other economies learn to play by the rules the rest of us try to respect, we need to be very, very careful in how we work with them. And we were just a tiny company; they must be looking at the auto market and salivating like crazy.
I believe the last “Not recommended” labels CR gave were for the Suzuki Samari (’89 or so?) and the Isuzu Trooper (’95)……
Chinese manufacturers know that while there’s no force keeping them from building and selling cloned cars in China, there’s no way they’ll be able to sell a cloned Toyota in the (read “big money”) markets which actually recognize IP. How much Cisco code do you think Huawei is exporting to the U.S.?
The really sick part in all of this are the U.S. retailers like Wal-Mart that actively encourage their domestic suppliers (through constant price pressure) to move the actual manufacturing process to a Chinese supplier. The Chinese then build to spec, with no investment in product development, marketing, etc. And then, after a relatively brief period, Wal-Mart’s purchasing vultures go around their U.S. supplier and buy directly from the Chinese manufacturer. This is really easy to do with products that aren’t necessarily patent-worthy. A very small change in a product renders any infringement lawsuit worthless.
While this may cut out the “middle man” (who USED to be the manufacturer!) and make things cheaper for the rest of us (and more profitable for Wal-Mart), pretty soon none of us will have jobs that allow us to be consumers of products from ANYBODY. I believe the rush to Globalization comes from the large multi-national corporations preparing for just such an eventuality – the murder of the American Middle Class. Does GM care where their profit comes from, provided it comes? Sure, their own mortality is in question eventually, but GM has never been one for the long view.
Q. What does R&D stand for in China?
A. Receive and Duplicate
I happen to be an avid airsofter. A great hobby for an ex-serviceman with nice physical exercise benefits. Anyway, until a few years ago the best airsoft guns all came from Japan (Tokyo Marui, etc.), with slightly less quality ones from Taiwan (Classic Army, etc). Then the chinese entered the market, first with cheap and blatant copies (clones) of the Taiwanese products, then cheap but better clones of Japanese products. Everyone knew the quality and longterm durability was not there, but the fit and finish was improving with each new offering, and they were cheap entry level products, which made them very attractive and brought in new users. Each new introduction was better than the last.
Last year, the latest Chinese models had reached the point where they were indistinguishable from their twice the price Japanese brethren, with quality and durability was virtually on the same par, and in some case aesthetically superior.
And then the shocker….the Chinese started releasing their own designs, items not found anywhere else, with the same quality and still half the price of their nearest competitor, if there had been one. Another year or three, and I could easily see them being the dominant manufacturers in this (admittedly niche) market.
Some years ago, I read a very good newspaper column by Kevin Maney, USAToday’s technology columnist, that said, in a nutshell, that the Chinese intellectual property model was the future, not the aberration, and went on to discuss why. In a digital age where the cost of reproduction of information is effectively zero, that is very close to what it should cost after the initial recovery of expenditures. Railing and litigating against the modern version of the printing press introduction is as pointless today as it was in Gutenberg’s time.
Found it:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2005-05-03-music-piracy-china_x.htm
Here’s a few more I dug up in a quick internet search:
http://samvak.tripod.com/nm047.html
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20050504/1041227
http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_dcc.doc
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/weekinreview/14LOHR.html?ex=1378872000&en=a055d75c7ce7ed04&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/
30 years ago, Japanese cars were rated “Not recommended”; 10 years ago, Korea cars were rated “Not recommended”; and now Chinese cars are rated “Not recommended”…
Cowbell has it exactly right. The “joint venture” operations are nothing more than bait to lure international companies into “sharing” their intellectual property until the Chinese Government gathers enough information to fly solo and boots out the foreign sides of the joint ventures.
At that point Chinese autos will be at least as good as the competition and then will surpass them in no time.
China isn’t thinking globally for the good of the world, China is thinking globally for the good of China.
Besides, why should we trust GM, Chrysler, and Ford to help bring in the Chinese auto industry to the global market when the 2.5 can’t even handle the market they invented for themselves?
Ultimately, it will be up to us, the consumers, to make a statement by refusing to buy cars from companies that don’t respect copyright laws. Many people, of course, to whom the entire concept of copyright is not a part of their lexicon, will just make a “bottom-line” decision; however, as another person posting earlier pointed out, it is likely that some of those people will get what they deserve: cars that won’t be recommended by Consumer Reports. Think about it: if a car can’t get a recommendation from a magazine you’d use to decide what toasters to buy, what do you think TTAC, Car and Driver or Road & Track might say?
One has to wonder what kind of MG the result will be, from the Chinese company that plans to build them in Oklahoma. (As Dave Barry used to write: I am NOT making that up!)
I wonder if the English sat around drinking tea and bitching about Francis Lowell and the rest of the American technology thieves.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/argument_atar_marpar04.msp
Yeah, the Chinese are such nice guys. We should just give away all of our industrial capacity to them.
In the 30’s, the United States did a lot of trade with both Japan and Germany. They were just as swell as the Chinese are today.
Even if the Chinese did want to dump their US govt. securities, they’d run into the small problem of who would buy them at a profitable (for the Chinese) price. Try to dump them all at once, and the Chinese would get a fraction of what they paid back. Speculators and others would probably gain at China’s expense.
But China has a bigger problem — demographics. The dubious success of their one child policy has produced a country that’s rapidly aging. And they don’t have the per capita wealth of Japan to cover the expenses of that aging population. In a country with a long tradition of ancestor worship, a nation of boy children (the girls are getting aborted or sold to the West) who have no siblings or first cousins (with no first cousins once removed coming soon) who are the single descendant of six people (two parents, four grandparents) isn’t exactly a long term viable economic or military threat to the US.
Not too long ago the Japanese copied American cars but they incorporated into their designs and embelished them instead of just duplication like the Chinese.
The real question is are the Chinese going to learn from their duplication or just steal from everyone.
1) IP is simply a game of the established powers. The underdog always tries to find ways around it. As the most obvious example, every major country more or less stole some nuclear technology (the US stole from Germany). So essentially, it is not about obeying American IP laws (and every country has a different one). It is about can you get away with what you do.
2) When someone profits by breaking IP laws, another one profits by exploiting the system and over-extended the IP laws (such as the RIM case).
3) It has nothing to do with dictatorship or whatever. Look at Russia or some democratically elected South American countries. They are the same.
4) Except that the Chinese actually demonstrated some quality and originality(just like the Japanese), and thus becoming the most feared. “Cheap” is another way of saying “good.” Cheaper for the same quality = better for the same price. The customers/consumers are always correct. If they don’t buy your stuff, it’s your own problem. Try to have an edge that actually have some substance and fire the union workers.
Just to reply whose who would like to see some tough action from the American government:
It’s like when little Tom got humuliated by little John, Tom would plea to Dad “Please beat up John and his Dad! I know you are strong!” And yeah, the two Dads are close business partners.
Man, sounds like stealing. although I really want to want cars on these shores. The more the marrier. Stealing is um…a tough call.
So called intellectual property is not the same thing as physical property and “stealing” it isn’t the same either. Lawyers invented the very notion of intellectual property and have made themselves very rich by getting the rest of us to pay them to argue about it.
If I take your shovel, you no longer have a shovel to use. If you decide to name your shovel Alfred and I think, cool, I will name my shovel Alfred as well … you still have your shovel. So “stealing” IP is of an entirely different nature than is stealing physical goods.
There is no such thing as an original design for an automobile. They are all derived from that which has gone before. Speaking of which, when GM hired the Chrysler designer who had done the PT Cruiser and asked him to do another one the result was the HHR. Ever notice how much alike those two vehicles look? Ford hired away the prior generation Passat designer and had him do the Five Hundred (soon to be Taurus). Wow, interesting that the Five Hundred looks like a previous generation Passat after too many Super Size Me meals at McD’s. These kinds of efforts don’t give the existing automakers much leg to stand on in complaining about copycat products. Every automaker in the world has a reverse engineering department which takes apart the work of the other guys to find ideas to use.
Apple recently stole the name of it’s telephone product from Cisco (iPhone) and they only recently settled a lawsuit about it. In fact, Apple is trying to corner the market on i______ names when in fact they were late to the game. Apple’s ideas for the mouse and graphical user interface were stolen from Xerox’s PARC research group. Xerox did a terrible job commercializing the ideas and Steve Jobs litterally took their ball and ran with it. Microsoft got worried about Apple and stole the ideas from them. Both groups knocked off much of the work of Digital Research’s early GEM product. Seeing US executives get on their high horse and complain about China’s view of IP is absurd if you know the backstories.
My $10 Ralex watch works great!!!
Good post John.
The forced partnerships in China, instead of being, um, certain death for the world, might just be a way of encouraging the Chinese people to get involved in commerce/entrepreneurship for the future betterment of the Chinese people and everyone else. I am no fan of government force (really, seriously, Im not) but that might be the reason.
I predict that within 20 years time that the Chinese people will surpass the Japanese as our best trading partners/friends similar to our relationship with Australia. The reason I think this is because, like us, the Chinese people think BIG! Got to like a country whose national bird is the building crane.
I wonder if people in Silicon Valley complain about cheap labor and sweatshop conditions and “they are taking or jobs!” when they speak of Dallas Texas. Hummm.
This debate splits into two categories, Should we buy cars from china, and will the cars be any good? From there, it is split white/grey/black again. One of the most spectrum things i have seem in a while.
Should we buy chinese cars, looking at morals.
White: Stopping the chinese is stopping free trade! It’s discrimination! It’s what happened to the japanese!
Grey: I support imports, but not from companies who steal.
Black: Supporting china is supporting communism/sweatshops!
Should we buy these chinese cars, from a consumers standpoint?
White: No, crappy laborers + 10,000 parts + 4000 pounds + 200mph = Disaster
Grey: The more competition, the lower the prices.
Black: Yes, go $10,000 dollar ferarri!
Me, i subscribe to the grey area, then the white area.
“So “stealing” IP is of an entirely different nature than is stealing physical goods.”
If I open a burger chain called “McDougall’s” and erect a giant M outside all the restaurants, that’s an infrigiement on McDonald’s. Essentially, it’s identity theft. To say that intelectual property has less value than a shovel because the original owner still has his property is completely ignorant of the marketing principles required to build a successful brand.
Geely stole Toyota’s logo and added a stroke to it. It’s like stealing someone elses novel and changing a few character names and then calling it your own.
Minor correction but I don’t think the case had anything to do with copyright law or copyright enforcement. As I understand it, the case revolved around trademark and unfair competition claims which have nothing to do with copyright.
History repeats itself. Look a this car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Toyota_Model_AA.jpg
It looks like a Chrysler Airflow because it was a copy of the Chrysler Airflow. It is the Toyota AA, the first Toyota production .
Just wait until Geely is making there 200,000RMB – 400,000 V8 cars – Im sure Americans will love them.
At the moment Geely is only developing low end models for developing markets.
I’m not ignorance of modern marketing principles, in fact I understand them rather well. However, I am disgusted by the brand obsessed, celebrity fawning modern culture.
Isn’t the Mitsubishi logo a shameless copy of the MB 3-point star? Or is the Porsche prancing horse a duplicate of the Ferrari horse? Don’t tell me that they register the logos on the exact same day.
An idea cannot be copyrighted, so any company can design a logo based on a horse. The point is: Geely’s logo is not based on an idea, it’s based on Toyota’s logo. If the horse on the Porsche crest was against a yellow background with stripes above its head, then clearly that would be a copyright infringement on the Ferrari brand. If the horse was against a red background with four circles above its head, then it wouldn’t be a problem.