And, in theory, in exchange for that access, outside companies gained new access to the Chinese market - to investing in factories there and selling products and services there. That was supposed to be part of the WTO deal.
But, the requirement in China that state owned companies had to be partners, that IP had to be transferred to these state partners as an additional condition of doing business -- that's what is unusual, that's where the word "forced" enters the conversation.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WTO rules reallly allow for that sort of required government involvement.
I think a recent EU complaint to the WTO about IP transfer rules in China does a better job of explaining the issue than I have. Bloomberg wrote about it in June:
In its complaint, the EU is targeting rules in China on the import and export of technologies and on Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures. Certain provisions “discriminate against non-Chinese companies and treat them worse than domestic ones,” violating WTO requirements that foreign businesses be put on an equal footing and that IP such as patents be protected ...
From
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/europe-ta...
or
https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/2018/06/01/e...
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like the EU and other countries could impose a wide range of conditions or restrictions onto Chinese investments or purchases without running afoul of WTO rules. Interesting stuff.
Looks like I stand both corrected and downvoted. Gotta luv HN!
On the other hand, as a thought experiment, what would have happened if China had been more open or fair to foreign investments? Then even more businesses would have invested in China and thus subject themselves to the influence of the Chinese government. For an example (not to imply any moral equivalence) see the tremendous power the US government wields over transactions conducted entirely between foreign entities.