Slashdot Mirror
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."
WTO knows who its soon-to-be-daddy is.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
Hey, the Iraqi Information Minister needed to get a job SOMEWHERE!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
I spend a great deal of time in China. The real crux of the problem is that there is a WIDE gulf between the law and enforcement of the law (unless it involves anti-government behavior...then the gulf narrows quickly).
I can easily go to any one of hundreds of locations that I know of (and I'm a damn foreigner) in Beijing and buy openly pirated movies and software. Sure, it is illegal to sell that stuff per the law books, but the government just doesn't care. And when they make some noise about caring, it's VERY temporary, the press gets their story and photos, and then it's back to business as usual.
Government officials are profiting directly from winking at this illicit trade so there's little incentive for those lower on the totem poles to rock the boat. It's not uncommon for the owner of one of these illicit DVD/CD fabs to bring in the relative of some party official in as a "silent partner" to keep the heat off. Welcome to China. Now be quiet and enjoy your 10RMB DVD (complete with fancy packaging and liner notes) that can be had in most subway stations and street corners in Beijing...er...roughly 7% of the price I'd pay at my local Best Buy for the same title in similar packaging.....
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
It seems quite fair to ask that the rights holder pay the cost of production if they choose to take possession the bootleg product, as they are then free to sell it for retail price. Why should the rights holder get a bunch of free product, which they would otherwise have to have paid to produce? If they rights holder doesn't want to retail the bootleg product themselves they can refuse to buy it.
In this case the Chinese government seems to be ahead of the US in applying market principles..
As the USA just ignores WTO when it suits them, like in the case of Internet Gambling and Antigua, do they honestly expect a country like China to pay any attention to WTO? And god help USA if it try's to "punish" China, as China could make the dollar worth less than a Zimbabwean dollar and blast the US economy back to barter system overnight
The way the U.S. Constitution is set up is quite unique with regards to international treatises and agreements. Once the U.S. enters into an international treatise, it is not only bound to act in accordance with the treatise in international relations, but the treatise also becomes a law of the land. And not only is it a law of the land, it is considered on par with other constitutional law, i.e., supreme over other laws.
Because of this very unique structure (I am unaware of other major political players with similar constitutional provisions), the U.S. tends to have more of a vested interest in either trying to change the terms of an agreement so that it falls more in line with their own laws, or to abstain entirely from an international treatise (e.g., Kyoto).
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.