Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

34 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. That's it! by Dizzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Screw this, I'm moving... oh, wait.

    1. Re:That's it! by justin12345 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The more you tighten your grip, MPAA/RIAA, the more systems will slip through your fingers.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    2. Re:That's it! by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    --
    0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    1. Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by squidfood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by dmatos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    3. Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by lelitsch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could you explain that in a bit more detail? Who forces the US to export soybeans and machine tools to China? Oh, you mean because they pay us money for them?

      Seriously, though, since the US is running up a 162 billion dolalr trade deficit with China, a trade embargo would be really successful. You'll stand in an empty WalMart way before anyone in China can't get raw materials. (Hint: they don't that much from the US. Machine tools come from Europe, mainly Germany, ICs are *exported* from China and Taiwan to the US, wood from Canada, oil from the Persian Gulf, and they can live without soy beans, or get them from Brazil).

    4. Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by brendalson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hell, I'm a US citizen and I have a reflex against US citizens.

    5. Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummm, Japan, the EU, Australia, Russia, Canada, etc ... will be more than happy to export machinery and machine parts, integrated circuit, or soybeans if we don't. The US is China's 3rd largest trade partner after Japan and the EU, we don't have much pull to spare over there that somebody wouldn't be more than happy to take off our hands.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    6. Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? by forand · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you implying that the current state of the trade deficit is somehow good? Sure some small ammount of money for each article we ship to china comes back to the US but when China ships the finished product back to the US to be sold they are taking a much larger chunk of change back to China than we got.

  3. F*** That Sh*T by bazmail · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yankee go home!

  4. When questioned about this plan... by Suzumushi · · Score: 5, Funny

    The RIAA/MPAA spokespeople for the US government responded, "We just need some breathing space."

    1. Re:When questioned about this plan... by ln+-sf+head+ass · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd normally shout "Godwin's Law," but I'm too busy laughing! Up next week, RIAA annexes the Sudetenland.

    2. Re:When questioned about this plan... by antiMStroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. The War on Corporations Losing Money! by garcia · · Score: 3, Funny

    Experts will be sent to Brazil, India, Russia, Thailand, China and the Middle East and serve a five-year tour of duty, the fact sheet said.

    You just *have* love quotes like that. Yay! The War on Drugs and now the War on Software Piracy! Tours of duty, lol!

  6. "Train" by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    would train foreign judges

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

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:"Train" by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  7. Its cold here in hell by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Another programme, called the Global Intellectual Property Rights Academy, would train foreign judges, enforcement officials and other stakeholders in international intellectual property "obligations" and best practices. The academy, overseen by the US Patent and Trademark Office, plans to convene in 24 sessions in 2006, paying all travel expenses for the foreign participants, who will come from many of the same areas where experts will be working.

    I don't know what to even say to that.

    The US Patent and Trademark Office has their own special issues. We are going to "train" people about their laws concerning intellectual property "obligations" and "best practices"?

    Put me in charge of this damn thing. I'll use napalm to train these guys.

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

    1. Re:Its cold here in hell by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  8. How to control the world by wlvdc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hmm, this sounds more like a world domination plan. So the US-government and US-businesses have agreed that all intellectual-property shall be theirs, and their agents ("... train foreign judges") will do the field administration to assure US interests secured. Why is the US so convinced of it's own legal system. Why should it work for the rest of the world?

    --
    -- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.
    1. Re:How to control the world by Yaa+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

  9. So this *isn't* colonialism, right? by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    *native* government officials?

    Lord Blimey, we can't have those nig-nogs and fuzzy-wuzzies running about without proper supervision! They might *violate* our intellectual property!

    Send the colonial administrators in to pick out a few of the more obedient and docile wogs and turn them into loyal colonial servants.

    (and if you can't spot the sarcasm in that, you'd better bloody well mod me down, hadn't you?)

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  10. On the sole export of the US by Haiku+4+U · · Score: 3, Interesting
    When all you make is
    crappy IP, you damn well
    gonna do just this.

    I miss the old days
    when we could point to something
    tangible we made.

    Now, all we export
    is bad movies, music, and
    pain and suffering.

  11. Re:Way to go, Dunya. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Funny
    I'm so glad my tax money is being squandered on this joke, rather than going to something worthwhile, like...say...Katrina relief.

    Since Katrina relief is now a French concern, you no longer have to worry about misallocation of tax dollars.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  12. Isn't it ironic... by Enlarged+to+Show+Tex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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

  13. Ooh, watch out, Canada! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised they didn't mention Canada. See, Canada currently has Life+50 copyright (while Europe, for instance, has Life+70); unless someone leans on them, the complete works of A. A. Milne (d. 1956) will become public domain there on January 1, 2007. So, given that Winnie the Pooh is a particularly large cash cow for Disney, who wants to bet that Canada mysteriously chooses to extend their copyrights to "harmonize" (or whatever the bullshit phrase is) their copyrights with ours, or with Europe's?

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  14. Way to Legislate Special Interest by LordMyren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  15. So... by Evil+Butters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [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]

    --
    Homer no function beer well without.
  16. IP is a big American fantasy by Simonetta · · Score: 3, Informative

    'Intellectual Property' is nothing more than a big American fantasy invented to compensate for the fact that they don't make anything anymore except ultra-high-tech death machines and recycled entertainment products.
          And frankly, killing can be done, when needed, with the tried-and-true low-tech methods and the recycled entertainment product can all be easily copied by anyone with a $100 PC.

        IP is what you use to try and convince people that you are still relevant in the world when you don't make anything anymore, your people are buffoons living on borrowed money from everyone, and you still have enough hydrogen bombs to make it awkward for anyone to point out the obvious fact that you are nowhere near as important as you were fifty years ago.

        So all this effort to metamorphize a concept like 'intellectual property' into the legal equivalent of actual physical items that have intrinsic value is bound to fail internationally. In more ways than one, people just aren't going to buy it. They'll give you lots of lip service, sign your treaties, stay in expensive hotels for endless international conferences (as long as you pick up the tab), and then, just ignore whatever it was that you were getting so upset about.

        The Americans thought they were so smart by trashing their industrial base, shipping all of their manufacturing jobs overseas, and laying off (or never hiring in the first place) all the people that comprised the only real asset that they ever had...smart people willing to come to termperate North America from all over the world in order to get away from the assholes that were making it impossible to make a good life in the old country. Now the Americans have fucked up their physical country, their economy, their good name, and their middle class.

        So what's left? Intellectual Property! And just what exactly is that? One more illiterate, psychopathic 'rapper'? One more $100,000,000 buddy-cop movie?

        Grow up, fools!

  17. This is ridiculous! by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Karma be damned!!

    Look, W. I voted for you not once, but twice! What the hell are you trying to prove with this latest shenanigan? The U.S. already has a reputation for being a global bully who pushes its views on others. I don't agree with that across the board, but now you're doing nothing more than adding really flammable fuel to that particular fire.

    Let me get this straight. We're going to train foreign individuals who are not in any way U.S. citizens or have any direct link to the U.S. in order to protect U.S. media corporation interests?? And exactly WHY are *MY* tax dollars (as well as the tax dollars of those who already hate you) going to protect the intellectual property of corporations that have enough money to do this on their own?

    The simple fact is that if those other countries gave a rat's rear end about the IP rights of U.S. corporations, they would already be doing more to protect those rights or they would have come to us by now asking for help in accomplishing that task. It doesn't take a brain surgeon, which you are proving more and more that you are not, to realize that they most likely don't care. The only reason why they might care is that they wanted to avoid what you're now doing, thus making this whole thing out to be quite disingenuous.

    We already look like selfish bullies to the rest of the world. This is just going to make it worse. Thanks a lot. I really hope that those other countries tell you to piss off with respect to this particular issue.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  18. Re:Yeah right... by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  19. That's actually an issue with the Supremes by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  20. Re:When did USA become by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  21. British East India Tea Company by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can't enforce US law in china.

    Why not?? We westerners have always done this kind of thing to Asia!

    Another word needs to be added, opium. Because the British imported so much tea they had a serious trade deficit so to even out the imbalance they imported into China opium, thus started the Opium Wars. The Chinese emperor tried to stop the opium and when he did the British sent in troops and they roundly defeated the Chinese and forced the emperor to allow opium. Therefore the saying that the queen was a drug dealer was correct. At the same tyme Britain also forced the lease of Hong Kong.

    Falcon