U.S. Announces Global Intellectual Property Plan

Angry_Admin writes "ZDNet is running a story about how the U.S. has announced new plans to expand its crackdown on intellectual-property infringement overseas. From the article:'One program would place intellectual property experts on the ground in regions where infringement is considered a concern. There they would work with overseas U.S. businesses and native government officials to advocate improved intellectual-property rights protection, according to a department fact sheet. Another program, called the Global Intellectual Property Rights Academy, would train foreign judges, enforcement officials and other stakeholders in international intellectual property obligations and best practices.'"

Comments

Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries?

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

The problem is, other countries have other laws. You can't enforce US law in china. They'll tell us just where we can stick our initiative. I hope that ALL the countries do the same....

Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries?

[squidfood]

You can't enforce US law in china.

Why not?? We westerners have always done this kind of thing to Asia! I want my government to promote our monopolies abroad. I offer you five words: British East India Tea Company.

Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries?

[dmatos]

You are absolutely correct. The US is under no obligations to ship soybeans, machine parts, and integrated circuits to China. However, if the US does stop shipping these products to China, what are they going to do with the vast stockpiles that will build up? How are they going to replace the lost revenue?

A trade relationship only exists (ideally) when both sides benefit. If you think the US is selling products to China, or anywhere else, simply out of the good of their collective hearts, you are sorely mistaken. For every article that leaves a US port, a certain amount of foreign money flows into the US economy. Disrupt this state of events at your own risk.

"Train"

[grub]

would train foreign judges

Yeah, all those years of school and working as lawyers in the field couldn't prepare them enough.

Re:"Train"

[A beautiful mind]

"It clearly doesn't. While American judges typically attend undergraduate school, law school, and practice as attorneys or are at least involved in the legal system for some kind of tenure before being appointed to courts, judges in many other nations often have far less legal expertise. The standards of American legal knowledge inherent in our court system are not shared worldwide. A handful of nations have judges who are far more knowledgable, but on balance, the nations in question tend to have a relatively large number of people in positions of legal authority whose primary qualification is being related to or owed favor by the right people in power. That does happen in the 'States too, but usually those people have some case for being qualified on their own merits.

For the record, law school trains you very, very little to actually be an attorney, and not at all to be a judge. Lawyering skills are almost entirely acquired on the job. When attorneys and judges "grow up" professional in a corrupt legal system, all the training in the world isn't going to convince them to enforce law consistantly. "

Do you have ANYTHING to back this up apart from your gut feeling? While you could certainly mention quite a lot of nations whom quite possibly have worse laws in some ways than the USA, let me raise two objections:

1. The laws and the system of law is different in a lot of countries than in the USA. DIFFERENT, not worse. I would think it is highly probable, that a judge knows his/her country's laws better than 99% of judges from an another country.

2. The Northern European democracies also belong into the many other countries, and i would think that being the most stable democracies in the world, if anybody, they could lecture about what it means to practice law.

"By international standards, American courts are a model of principle and fairness, as amazing as that may seem."

Forgive me my gut feeling, but i somehow very much doubt that in the light of recent court decisions in the USA like when some judges said it's OK for the government to detain people for crimes which didn't stand up to a trial for an indefinate amount of time.

Re:Its cold here in hell

[garcia]

I'm speechless. I don't think I really want to live in this country (USA) any more.

That's the worst possible solution -- being speechless I mean.

Re:When questioned about this plan...

[antiMStroll]

That's backwards. The US government now proves itself a wholly owned subsidiary of entertainment cartels. Future historians will have a field day with our era, endlessly arguing, picking apart and tracing precisely where and how it was decided to relinquish fundamental rights for the benefit of a tiny minority of business interests specializing in trivialities.

Isn't it ironic...

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

...that the US wants foreign judges to consider US law as it judges things in its own jurisdiction, yet doesn't want US judges to consider foreign law as it judges matters here in the US?

E2ST

Re:How to control the world

[Yaa 101]

It doesn't... look at the world trade center...

It is exactly these kind of arrogant things that form a magnet for negativity...

Way to Legislate Special Interest

[LordMyren]

I'll repeat it again;
Way to legislate special interest!

What fuck-asses. I cant wait to see the nepharious two-fisted bullshit these content-holder hitmen are going to try to pull on the rest of the world. Once you get past the sickening reality, it should be downright fucking hilarious. They wont exactly have all that much leverage, they're just some random joe show shows up claiming to be defending some other nations interests. Surreee, we'll listen to you.

The US remains the only place in the world where law enforcement considers 100% enforcement their duty. Less barberic civilization seems to have realized that the purpose of laws is for the general goodwill and fortune of the populous, and laws should be enforced or not enforced as such. Its called humanity you nincompoops.

Its kind of scary to think nations might willingly forfeit the sovereignty of letting someone else come in and demand that they start enforcing their laws better. There's cases of defunct government where such aid is needed, but its pathetic that hte only place the US is going to start leveraging such direct extra-national influence is to the cock-sucking lobbyists that've completely monopolized the entertainment sector. Its even more terrifying to think that any self respecting international body would let agents of a single nation impose this policy.

Little more ire than usual, but whatever. "Sometimes you know, I get so pissed off,"
Myren

Myren

So...

[Evil Butters]

[sarcasm]

Well, now that we've captured Bin Laden, resolved all of the problems from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, finally got out of Iraq and solved our crime and unemployment problems locally, I'm glad to see that our country is putting our over abundance of tax dollars to good use!

[sarcasm]

Re:Yeah right...

[scsirob]

Since you think this is such a marvellous plan, how about this... Dutch / European IP law works quite well and hasn't as of yet created the mess that the USPTO has for you. I think we should send some Dutch advisors over and tell the American companies exactly how they should apply *our* IP laws as universal guidelines. This will be very beneficial, especially for European companies who have a head start. I'm sure that will be very well recived over there, right?!? No?!? What a surprise...

That's actually an issue with the Supremes

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Isn't it ironic...that the US wants foreign judges to consider US law as it judges things in its own jurisdiction, yet doesn't want US judges to consider foreign law as it judges matters here in the US?

That's an issue with the Supremes - and the appointment and confirmation process - right now.

Some of the "Consititution is a Living Document" crowd - who want to bend the protections into any convenient shape so they can be conveniently ignored - DO want the Supremes to "consider foreign law" when they make their decisions.

The problem is: that's ILLEGAL. The US government has ONLY the power granted it by the Constitution, and the whole POINT of the Supreme Court (in the current operation of the country) is to hold it to those limits. All US law derives from the Constitution. Giving foreign law ANY input into the decision-making at the judicial level risks breaking the single defense of citizens' rights (short of violent anti-government action.) Then you get to knuckle under or fight a war, probably lose, and end up broke and exhausted even if you DO win.

Foreign law properly gets incorporated through legislation to fulfill treaty obligations. Then the judiciary determines whether the chosen implementation is within the government's limits and sends it back for a rehack if not. Citizens and lawyers only have to deal with the law of the US.

In the absense of adherence to that set of limits the President can do anything he pleases and the Congress can pass any law they can get the President to enforce. Tyranny with a capital-T.

The Supreme Court puts the brakes on that by knocking down laws, regulations, and executive excesses when they exceed the constitutional bounds. (It keeps working over a significant time because the main source of their power is knocking down improper laws - and being seen as reasonably consistent and true to the meaning of the constitution when doing so.)

But recently a supreme court justice mentioned foreign law in a decision - in a way that makes it appear that it influenced that decision. Now whether new appointees are going to stick to the constitution or "legislate from the bench" by ad-libbing and/or giving foreign law some standing above portions of the Constitution itself is a big issue.

Re:When did USA become

[swordgeek]

Well, the current administration really formalised their plans to build a world-wide empire in 1997, when they founded the Project for a New American Century. Here's their policy statement:

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

          we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
        responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

          we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

          we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

          we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.


If it sounds like a bunch of nutbars running the organisation, take a look at their founders and board of directors. I'm sure you'll find some familiar names.

Re:That's it!

[uncoveror]

This is bigger than frivolous entertainment products like teen pop music and Hollywood movies. The strict enforcement of drug company patents will mean that people in developing nations who need inexpensive generic drugs, not outrageously priced name brand ones, are going to die so that rich bloodsucking businessmen can drink their fill. The body count could easily be in the millions.