Those other places aren't as cheap as China apparently, hence why companies take the risk. None of this means that companies don't care about their IPs, what it means is that they put low production costs over IP protection. This isn't an all or nothing, it's a matter of priorities.
You perceive situations different to the majority in lots of situations, so I don't expect it to be any different in this case. In this thread there was already the news posted that Trump agreed to a ceasefire with China in the trade war due to experts warning him about further damage to the global economy. Still, you didn't want to believe that economists are outspoken against the trade war with China.
So you are going to say that it was just me that saw most newspapers putting Trump as "the biggest threat to democracy in USA ever"?
I'm pretty sure they do a risk analysis and decide that the benefit of low cost was higher than the risk of having products copied. But the way that was originally put was like they would rather lose all their IPs than to have higher costs.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."