How the US Lost Its China Complaint On IP

An anonymous reader writes "The World Trade Organization yesterday released its much-anticipated decision involving a US complaint against China over its protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The US quickly proclaimed victory, with newspaper headlines trumpeting the WTO panel's requirement that China reform elements of its intellectual property laws. Yet the reality is somewhat different. As Michael Geist notes, the US lost badly on key issues such as border measures and criminal IP enforcement, with the international trade body upholding the validity of China's laws."

Comments

why bother about their laws being implemented

[crazybit]

outside US borders?

What's next? trying to push a world wide patriot act?

Re:why bother about their laws being implemented

[xero314]

why bother about their laws being implemented outside US borders?

This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS. These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily.

The decision basically states that china is not fully compliant with the Bern Convention, but they are within the letter of the TRIPS agreement.

Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.

Re:why bother about their laws being implemented

[A Commentor]

From the article, China only lost a minor copyright issue. China refused to recognized copyrights for articles that are "unconstitutional or immoral." The WTO said they needed to. All of the other complaints were dismissed.

Re:why bother about their laws being implemented

[TubeSteak]

This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS.

From the TRIPS wikipedia link:
TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense lobbying by the United States, supported by the European Union, Japan and other developed nations.

From the Bern Convention wikipedia link:
The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention since it would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 [as an alternative to the Berne Convention] to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, in the U.S. "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the Universal Copyright Convention obsolete.

The USA has always had a strong policy of exporting and forcing shitty laws (on)to other countries.

Re:why bother about their laws being implemented

[Hao Wu]

If you asked Britain in the 1800s, China had no right to refuse the "free trade" of importing opium no matter who it killed.

Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906, China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population was addicted--13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly. From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era, the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Prohibition_and_conflict_in_China

For losing to the British invasion, China had to pay $15 million in restitution to British merchants, open their ports to the drug trade, and cede Hong Kong to Britain.

But they were only enforcing trade agreements!

Re:Haha

[TubeSteak]

If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.

The punitive measures are not "lets stop trade with China".

Normally the WTO gives the wronged party permission to institute tariffs/duties on specific goods from the offending country, equal to the losses sustained by the aggrieved. Here's a recent example of the USA raising tariffs on cheese imported from Europe.

IPKat

[thesp]

IPKat has a very nice analysis, as usual, here:

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/01/breaking-news-wto-panel-report-on-us.html.

However, IPKat concludes that it's more of a score-draw than a loss by the US.

Re:the real problem is enforcement

[troll8901]

wu-shing pigu (5 star beer)

Suggest you call it either "wu-shing pi-chiu" or "wu-xin pi-jiu" instead. "Pigu" sounds like ass... I swear!

clear liquor that I forget the name of but it was potent

The Chinese, Japanese and other Asians are great at making wine out of anything - rice, barley, wheat, and so forth. One mouthful is enough to make me drunk.

You've lead a very interesting life. And you're a real Scientist with a 3-digit ID!

Re:the real problem is enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to mod you up.
Then you said "mute"

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

When you start talking severe economic moves, the US could always respond in kind. What happens if they declare the bonds to be worthless, as in they aren't going to pay? That negatively impacts their credit of course, but then maybe they are able to successfully spin it with their allies so that it doesn't. China is waging "economic war" against the US so they HAVE to respond in kind, etc, etc, etc. Or perhaps as you suggest there are actual war overtones and as part of that, the US freezes all China's assets, including the bonds. They find a semi-legal way to make them worthless, a way that doesn't piss off anyone else (and in fact maybe makes other bond holders happy since it doesn't devalue their bonds).

There are many people who act like it is a case of China holding all the cards, and the US being at their mercy. Actually it's more a case of economic mutually assured destruction. While it is likely China could cause havoc to the US economy, it is a near certainty that the US response would decimate the Chinese economy. Hell it might not even be any real response. China trys to tank the US economy, the US doesn't respond, the economy tanks. Americans pull extremely far in to their shells and stop buying everything but essentials, and specifically good from China (since you know the media would have a field day with this). The Chinese economy grinds to a halt and now they have a major problem of civic unrest.

Basically it isn't something either country stands to gain from thus it isn't likley to happen. China wants the US happy and buying their goods.