Why Obama Should Change US Trade Policy On Intellectual Property
from the doing-more-harm-than-good dept
For years, we've had serious problems with the way the US government has viewed intellectual property when it comes to trade agreements. In many ways, it's been the exact opposite of its stated plan. We see, time and time, again where a supposed "free trade agreement" is actually about forcing other countries to add protectionist policies more draconian than the US. That's not free trade at all, and just as tariffs and other trade barriers harm the very industries they're supposed to protect, the US's trade policy concerning intellectual property has done great harm to US intellectual property industries. Unfortunately, you rarely see that discussed anywhere.That's why it's good to see Ed Black, president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, writing up an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News explaining to President-elect Obama why US trade policy concerning IP needs to change. First, he worries about the widespread reports that Obama has chosen Xavier Becerra to be the new US Trade Representative. In the past, the US Trade Rep has basically acted as a representative of Hollywood at times, and Becerra may be no different... as he's literally the Congressional rep for California's 31st district... which (you guessed it) covers Hollywood. Uh oh. That would be like making a Congressional rep from Detroit in charge of automotive policy in the US. They're less likely to have the nation's overall best interests in mind.
Black then outlines three reasons why the US's insistence on pushing draconian IP laws through trade agreements is a bad idea:
- It's alienating many of our allies who feel they're being forced to put in place excessively draconian IP laws they don't need or want.
- It takes away from America's ability to spread our culture internationally. Black notes how bootleg products in Eastern Europe helped contribute to the fall of communism there. By greatly restricting how American content can be used, we actually aid repressive regimes.
- Finally, and most importantly, these restrictions actually harm the US economy. Black specifically notes how excessive IP legislation that does not allow for fair use (which is what the US is pushing in most countries) actually harms American internet companies, allowing them to get sued for copyright infringement on things that should be fair use. He could actually go much further in how it harms our economy, but at least it's a start.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: intellectual property, obama, trade policy, us trade representative, xavier becerra
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Becerra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Becerra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Becerra
It sound like a bunch of government regulation and market interference.
I am sure free trade is not about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link
"We are specifically concerned about the inclusion of intellectual property restrictions in the U.S. bilateral free trade negotiations with developing countries in Latin America, and elsewhere, that would grant five to eight years of exclusivity for brand name pharmaceutical products, even where patent barriers not longer exist. During that time governments would not be able to rely upon clinical test data submitted by the brand name products to grant marketing approval for generic copies, even in situations of urgency... For any patient, five years without access to affordable drugs can be the difference between life and death. The prospect is especially dangerous for those with chronic or high-risk diseases. In the 11 Latin American countries that are our current FTA negotiating partners there are already more than 530,000 documented HIV/AIDS cases and an alarmingly low number of patients with access to treatment."
I don't know what his copyright views are, but it looks like he will be an improvement over predecessors in the position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad: The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that in 2005, more than nine of every 10 DVDs sold in China were illegal copies. The U.S. Trade Representative said 80 percent of all counterfeit products seized at U.S. borders still come from China. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
China's Pirating
The MPA always uses this as an argument to add more IP laws which are really used against US citizens, not China's, where the laws are rarely enforced.
The MPA will never acknowledge that no US movies (and music) are sold legally in China because it can not be by Chinese law. American influence only spreads through these illegal copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the IPR bandwagon
Pl. keep up your work which is great service to public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a crock of ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a crock of ...
Says who? And why? Patents and copyrights are government-granted monopolies. The term "intellectual property" was created to magically transform an intangible - an idea - into a tangible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a crock of ...
Until about the late 80's patent infringement enforcement through the courts was generally done by patent lawyers well versed in what the law is actually all about. Once general practice litigators determined there was money to be made, there was a significant shift in litigation from the former to the latter, and to a large degree I happen to believe this is a major source of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a crock of ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shama lama ding dong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shama lama ding dong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shama lama ding dong
Apparently this "agreement" is not world wide and therefore previous statement holds true.
What will the IP owners do about it ? Invade ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: shama lama ding dong
What will the IP owners do about it ? Invade ?"
Nothing is "worldwide" in IP protection, but that doesn't make IP a sham. If an undeveloped country progresses toward developing, and is considering the WTO, membership requires some IP protections set out in TRIPS. If an underdeveloped nation is total mess they have bigger things than IP rights to worry about. But for the big boys, there are SOME protections already in place.
Yes, we invade everyone and force them to pay for their bootleg Beyonce CD's. They can pay in goats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why intellectual property needs to be protected
Many goods/services require years and years of research and development before it is "ready for the market," and because of this, the returns gained from the sale of these goods and services belong to those that made that major (and risky) investment, and should for some period of time. If the intellectual property rights are not protected, anyone with reverse engineering ability can recreate those goods/services without that investment...so why would anyone want to make the major investment if their returns are no different than all of the other producers who copy it?
This is especially tricky in respect to drugs (i.e. those for AIDS and tropical diseases), if people really need the drugs, shouldn't we get the drugs to them as quickly/cheaply as possible? On the other hand, if there is no incentive to innovate, would we have the drugs in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why intellectual property needs to be protected
Almost this entire site is devoted to showing you reasons why what you just wrote is a total illusion. People buy innovative products-that's your reason to innovate. Being first to market gives you a considerable advantage, even if you're only first by a month. And if patents were so great for innovation, why has R&D spending remained flat in the US for the past 50 years?
Try reading the site and gathering some data before you post such naive opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why intellectual property needs to be protected
The evidence actually suggests the opposite. Whenever IP laws are strengthened, innovation decreases. And, in every study we've seen comparing countries without IP laws at the same time with neighboring countries with IP laws there is NO indication that those with IP laws have more innovation. In fact, the freedom in the non-IP countries often leads to greater innovation.
So, please don't repeat these myths.
Many goods/services require years and years of research and development before it is "ready for the market," and because of this, the returns gained from the sale of these goods and services belong to those that made that major (and risky) investment, and should for some period of time.
You are making a claim that need not be true. Why should you guarantee the profits to one party -- especially if that party does not do a very good job bringing the product to market?
What if someone else can do a better job? If it really takes so long for one company to get a product "ready for the market" then, no, it won't be easy for someone to just step in and replicate.
If the intellectual property rights are not protected, anyone with reverse engineering ability can recreate those goods/services without that investment...so why would anyone want to make the major investment if their returns are no different than all of the other producers who copy it?
You clearly have not read the research on this. There are plenty of incentives and it happens all the time.
This is especially tricky in respect to drugs (i.e. those for AIDS and tropical diseases), if people really need the drugs, shouldn't we get the drugs to them as quickly/cheaply as possible? On the other hand, if there is no incentive to innovate, would we have the drugs in the first place?
The pharma industry is an interesting one, but you are wrong. Many countries did not allow patents are pharma for years, but still had a thriving pharma industry. At the same time, the patent system has created screwed up incentives for the pharma system, such that it is less about helping people, and much more about retaining a monopoly, often based on research that was publicly funded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed Black
[ link to this | view in chronology ]