In those cases, US firms would be no worse off than if China did not exist. We all know of things like smoking pot and jaywalking that are technically illegal, but not actually very serious crimes. Is it good theft or bad theft? How much IP has China stolen? What is the market value? What fraction is stuff that never deserved IP protection, because in utilitarian terms the costs of the protection exceeded the benefits? How does the amount stolen compare to the amount stolen by American college students? How much was stolen by the Chinese government to boost their military power, and how much by private firms for selfish reasons?
And how much the stolen IP helped the Chinese people. You can argue that IP protection promotes growth, but others have argued the exact opposite, at least when the protections are too strong. Or by making China richer does it make them less likely to go to war? And by making China richer, does it make China less authoritarian in the long run? I need data. Just to be clear, I think it probably makes sense for Americans to put some effort into IP protection. I recall that recently the US almost destroyed a major Chinese firm that had violated US sanctions policies before President Trump gave them a reprieve.
Resisting intellectual property law
We are quite capable of punishing individual Chinese firms that violate the rules that we set up. I have more trouble seeing the value of a blunt instrument like a trade war. I doubt the benefits will end up outweighing the costs. How would the US stock market react to a sudden agreement that ended the threat of trade war, at the cost of Trump achieving only minor concessions from the Chinese? Would stocks plunge in disappointment about us not doing anything about IP theft? I doubt it; I think stocks would rise on the news. Admittedly, the market test is not the only one that matters; there may be military considerations as well.
I agree, and I hope this is a change of heart on his part. Our military is vastly superior to any other. I have no idea how big a problem this is, but suspect the actual numbers are smaller. It seems that China is acquiring IP in a lot of different ways and many people are not particularly rigorous in differentiating between them. Some things like hacking we can all agree are bad, but many people seem to think that things like forced technology transfer or buying technology is bad too.
By making it harder for Chinese companies to invest in and buy American technology, we are making developing IP less profitable and thus discouraging innovation. There is no requirement for a quid pro quo.
Intellectual Property & Global Policy - David - - Global Policy - Wiley Online Library
Well, I guess we now have precedent to do so if China ever develops any really valuable technology. Interesting post, maybe I even agree. Sometimes principles have to be set aide, as a practical matter. The Sino way has the advantage of keeping the Sino banking and financial system solvent. The US-way resulted in a collapsed banking-financial system China kept growing though the Global Financial Crisis of —Western economies did not. Very good post and the skeptical questions are key here. John Basset fought a years long battle against this and was ultimately successful.
The current length of protection may well be a drag on general welfare. What is far more depressing re the attitude of people generally, even libertarians, to China is the apparent indifference to the fact that it has been and remains an authoritarian state. The only reason there is some basic economic freedom appears to be just to keep the population pacified. Not really full humans anyway, so why worry, right? I think the key difference is that IP is much more clearly an arbitrary construct of government.
IP is also a non-rival good, you can make infinite copies of videos or patented designs and that does not prevent the original owner from using it. And surely patents should not apply to the design of furniture. That goes way beyond the original intention, which was to spur invention of new products. How did South Carolina fare from those furniture imports? Any distributional impacts at all?
I think we can safely say the rising tide lifts all boats and comparative advantage models are broken beyond repair. The furniture designs were copyrighted. Do read the book. John Bassett spent some number of years trying to get the Department of Commerce to bring action against the Chinese company that was pirating the designs. What utilitarian purpose does granting monopoly rights to sell tables with particular leg shapes serve society? Scott Sumner — recipes by definition cannot be copyrighted as they are mere listing of ingredients.
Copyright law is pretty explicit about what can and cannot be copyrighted of course the courts are the final arbiter as they are in lots of other IP cases.
Now you and Hazel Meade may not like what the law states but the remedy has to be a legislative one. As I noted in one of my earlier posts, I object to the random extension of copyright life as totally out of line but I acknowledge the right to protect innovation whether it is in the sciences or arts as long as the appropriate definitions are met. The big issue here is geopolitical. This is a daunting task that demands raising the cost of technology theft, which has been massive and is well documented. This response is totally rational for the game US leaders are playing, which may be a different game than the one you would rather was played.
I agree that taking IP without permission can be bad, but it is nowhere near as bad as taking something that is rivalrous in consumption. The arguments against taking of IP without permission have to be purely consequential. Media conglomerates are in essence equivocating when they call it theft, and we should not be fooled.
But there is a subtext that the IP being taken is by the Chinese Government and more oriented toward strategic advantage, especially military and high-tech. The US already has very strict laws about transfer of any technology that might have a military use. It would be extremely illegal for American companies to manufacture anything in China that has a military application.
- Resisting Intellectual Property!
- How should we think about the theft of intellectual property?!
- Resisting intellectual property law;
- On the Dignity of Man - Being and One.
- See a Problem?.
Scott, the answer to this is: the entirety of what was stolen. This is how China thinks about great power conflict, assume otherwise at your own peril. Consider lessons learned from the failure of the Soviets, specifically, to beat America you must become a military AND economic power. Consider the Kingdom of Qin, which purposely chose a path of austerity in economic development to dissuade others from plundering it, and also to entice its young men to go to war with other Kingdoms. It would not be the correct strategy today, but the fact remains the Chinese state uses all levers even economic ones, especially economic ones!
The Kingdom of Qin went on to conquer all the Chinese kingdoms and gives China its name. You do understand when China invades it never leaves, right? That part of the world becomes a part of China. Saved Searches Advanced Search. Rate this:. Blackwell North Amer Over the past decade, the scope of copyright and patent law has grown significantly, strengthening property rights, even when such rights seem to infringe upon other, more basic, priorities.
Each chapter in the book discusses how resistance is developing in relation to a particular copyright or patent issue such as: access to patented medication access to copyrighted information and music via the Internet the patenting of genetic material. ISBN: Characteristics: xiv, p. Additional Contributors: ProQuest Firm. From the critics. Comment Add a Comment. As such, copyright was circumvented in the interest of the personal contract which makes no provisions for fair use or the first sale doctrine.
Further, private contract law also meant that censorship of a product could be imposed rather than the public protection afforded under copyright law. UCITA did not pass. GPL states that all computer code designed under the license is available to all users GPL also stipulates that open licensing is hereditary — if you improve on open-source code you must also give that code back to the open-source community[9. Hence the development of tutorials and how-to sites to capitalize on open-source platforms like WordPress MU].
- Intellectual property rights: An overview and implications in pharmaceutical industry.
- Halbert – Resisting Intellectual Property Law.
- Innovative Reward Systems for the Changing Workplace.
- Join Kobo & start eReading today;
- Intellectual Property & Global Policy.
Open source is a good idea because: 1 it is cheap. Implications here for bittorrent tracker development for your own work. How filesharing is defined will, according to H. According to H. The conflict between the U. Yet, as H.
Resisting Intellectual Property
She goes on to highlight how business practices and industry models are outdated and inefficient; however, their shortcomings are pawned off on piracy and pirates as an excuse as opposed to shifting business models. The argument about piracy as disincentive for further creation is problematized by H. Further, the monopolistic tendencies of the three or four international music conglomerates is further stifling the production of heterogeneous cultural production in the formalized channels of the Culture Industry anyway resulting in a loss of autonomy for the artist.
In essence, this chapter draws attention to an example of how transnational activism trumped the discourse of property with the discourse of morality and human rights. The US, working in the interest of Big Pharma, has repeatedly used the TRIPS agreement as a means to circumvent low-cost access to pharmaceuticals in generic form in developing countries The DOHA declaration assured access to medicines for poor and developing countries. In this section H. Law, as the legitimating structure of the imperialist powers, secures this privatization through IP protections of local knowledges as commodities.
Debora Halbert and Ashley Lukens
This situation is made even more difficult by the counterclaims of IP protection for indigenous knowledge by the colonized themselves. In this chapter H.
It is argued that it is necessary to recognize that many peoples throughout the world continue to value things not for their economic worth, but for their spiritual, cultural, or emotional qualities.