Some rather twisted perceptions about IP here. While it's a subject fraught with complexities in detail (and a lot, as has been correctly pointed out, depends on contractual stipulations), the basics aren't that difficult to understand.
If you read my other posts, there is nothing “twisted”. I never claimed that Su-33 is not Sukhoi/Russian IP. I said it 100% is. You agree yourself that the concept heavily relies on contractual stipulations.
My main points were:
1. Contracts either don’t exist (or are secret), and designs specifics are classified. These two things are the only thing that can “prove legality”.
2. Ex-Soviet engineers were hired to work on the project. If they recreate a Su-33-like aircraft largely based on their own knowledge, this is not generally considered infringement in a western legal sense.
A lot of deck *testing* was done at the NITKA complex in Crimea, but the Ukrainian share in *development* of the Su-33 is the same as in any other Flanker version, that is to say negligible. You're claiming the equivalent of stating that the IP of the BAE Taranis UCAV belongs to Australia!
I did not claim anything actually, it was a rhetorical question. What technical information is Ukraine allowed to sell? For example Daewoo Chang Bogo SSK is a derivative of Type-209, but was sold independently to Indonesia in competition with HDW itself. Clearly such a clause was included in the contract.
Does any such contract exist in the former USSR? Antonov is located in Ukraine, you could say they own all the IP related to An-124. If Russia was to announce a new derivative of An-124, since it was Soviet IP, would it be not be infringement, right? What are the basics in this case?
The individual *airframes* which happened to be located on Ukrainian territory because they were deployed at Priluki air base at the time of the Soviet break-up, yes. NOT the *design* (i.e. the documentation and relevant certificates) of the Tu-160 as such, however. They sure as hell didn't buy back the 8 or so other Tu-160s that were already at Russian bases! Iran doesn't own any rights to the design of the F-14 just because it operates some airframes, does it?
That point was to illustrate the ownership of the physical asset only (A question directly asked by Gatekeeper).
Owning individual examples of a certain object =/= owning the IP to the design of said object & providing facilities or services to the principal developer does not give you the rights to the entire project either (at best you can lay claim to whatever aspect you contributed and perhaps demand royalties).
Of course. I said specifically, perhaps they (Ukraine) can lay claim to the carrier modifications.
My point is there is no definite answer to whether the J-15 is an “authorized” design or not. It is just an intellectual exercise.
Do you have a copy of the contract?
Are you basing your claims of reverse engineering solely on external appearance?
The prototype was 20 years old by the time of the official start of the J-15 project, with the updated tools and materials available to SAC, there could be significant deviations to the design vs. T-10K or Su-33.
If the Su-27 contract stipulated that China can build as many Su-27 airframes as they wanted after fulfilling their original purchases, where would that leave J-15?
Many of the Russian objections did not revolve around the airframe itself, but China not fulfilling the purchases of radars and avionics.
