From "Pirates" to "Defenders" - At the Beginning, the United States pretended to protect intellectual property rights and maintain hegemonic internal logic protection | Development | The United States
Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, July 24th - From "Pirates" to "Defenders" - At the Bottom, the United States Undermines the Logic of Protecting Intellectual Property Rights and Maintaining Hegemony
Xinhua News Agency reporter Su Liang
Encouraging the discovery of inventions, protecting innovative creations, and promoting technological applications - this is the duty of protecting intellectual property rights; The ultimate goal of protecting intellectual property is to maximize economic and social benefits, improve human quality of life, and promote global common development.
However, as a country with a first mover advantage in technology, the United States has long been instrumental and politicized in protecting intellectual property rights, often using measures such as long arm jurisdiction and high tariffs to suppress other countries, in order to seek its own selfish interests, consolidate its own hegemony, and hinder the development and progress of other countries, especially emerging countries.
From the early days of "taking shortcuts" to the present day of "playing domineering", the United States has transformed from a "pirate" to a so-called "defender", monopolizing under the guise of protection, with the fundamental goal of maximizing self-interest. Numerous experts have pointed out that the United States' intellectual property policy adheres to pragmatism, protectionism, and hegemonism, which goes against the original intention of the international intellectual property protection system.
Establishing the number one industrial powerhouse through "stolen property rights"
The protection of intellectual property in the United States has a glorious past. The United States, which is now prone to pointing fingers at other countries, was once a breeding ground for global intellectual property theft. Peter Andreas, a professor at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University in the United States, said that the United States only became a "defender" of intellectual property protection after becoming a leading industrial power.
Samuel Slater, known as the "father of the American Industrial Revolution," was once an apprentice at a British textile factory. He violated British law by bringing advanced hydraulic spinning machine technology to the United States, and was criticized by his hometown as a "traitor.". Boston businessman Francis Cabot Lowell stole power loom technology from a British factory and successfully replicated it in the United States.
In the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, American political elites not only did not reject the theft of advanced European technology, but also openly advocated and supported it. The founding president of the United States, Washington, generously praised Thomas Diggs, an American business spy who had been repeatedly imprisoned in the UK, stating that he was not only friendly but also full of enthusiasm. Washington also recommended British businessman Howell to set up a factory in Virginia, USA, specifically instructing the governor not to disclose Howell's name to avoid causing trouble for him in the UK.
The first US Treasury Secretary, Hamilton, claimed in his far-reaching report on manufacturing issues that the ban on advanced technology exports from European countries was "selfish" and "exclusive", and that incentives should be given to those who bring "extraordinary value technological improvements and secrets" to the United States.
Professor of History at Fordham University in the United States, Toronto Ben Atal, lamented that the Industrial Revolution in the United States was "born out of stolen property rights.".
Although the United States has long enacted copyright laws and established patent offices, it lacks the willingness and means to monitor the authenticity of applications, relies solely on personal oaths, and does not protect the rights of foreigners. American political economist Pat Chott believed that the United States at that time was a "super sanctuary" for global industrial counterfeiters to evade legal accountability.
The United States was once a major country for book piracy, with even libraries and bookstores flooded with pirated books. In the 19th century, the great British literary master Dickens was a victim of piracy in the United States. He and other well-known British writers jointly petitioned the US Congress to prevent piracy, but did not receive a serious response and could only come to an end.
In 1886, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, aimed at safeguarding international copyright, was concluded. Although the United States participated as an observer in international conferences that adopted the text of the convention, due to the underdeveloped publishing industry in the United States, participating in the convention was not beneficial to the United States. Therefore, the United States did not sign the convention until more than a hundred years later, in 1989, when it finally joined the convention.
Using "American Standards" to Promote Maximizing US Interests
One of the important tools for the United States to consolidate its economic first mover advantage and global hegemony is to forcefully promote "American style standards" for protecting intellectual property. The United States incorporated the protection of intellectual property rights into its hegemonic tool in the 1980s. At that time, Japan's rapid development in technology and economy, coupled with its long-term trade surplus with the United States, created a sense of crisis in its global competitiveness.
In 1985, the US Presidential Commission on Industrial Competitiveness emphasized in a report that in order to fully leverage US advantages, intellectual property protection should be a priority on the policy agenda. Not only will it expand the scope of intellectual property protection within the United States, but it will also promote compliance with American style rules among its trading partners, especially emerging industrialized countries.
This means that the essence of protecting intellectual property rights in the United States is to maintain its advantageous position in international trade. Therefore, the United States has included the so-called "protection of intellectual property", "market access", "currency manipulation", "anti-dumping and anti subsidy", and other measures in its "toolbox" to maintain its global hegemony. On the basis of Section 301 of the United States Trade Act of 1974, the 1988 Comprehensive Trade and Competition Act established a special Section 301 specifically addressing intellectual property issues. This provision stipulates that the US Trade Representative has the right to evaluate whether other countries have fully protected US intellectual property and take retaliatory measures.
Experts say that the United States appears to be protecting the legitimate interests of intellectual property owners, but because it holds the power to define "legitimate interests", forcing other countries to comply with US law and implement long arm jurisdiction is actually maintaining its global economic hegemony.
As soon as the relevant policies were introduced, the United States took action against Brazil, the largest economy in Latin America. In order to support the infringement allegations of American pharmaceutical industry interest groups, the United States imposed tariffs on some Brazilian products imported to the United States in the late 1980s and obstructed Brazil's appeal under the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, forcing Brazil to amend domestic laws to protect the interests of American companies.
In the Japan US trade negotiations, Japan also had to make commitments to protect the intellectual property rights of American companies. An analysis suggests that the forced adoption of "American standards" is one of the important reasons for Japan's economic decline.
The United States not only forces its trading partners to apply "American standards", but also attempts to promote "American standards" in international mechanisms to protect intellectual property. The United States, together with developed countries, has included intellectual property issues in the Uruguay Round negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, promoting the achievement of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. TRIPS adopts a "one size fits all" model for intellectual property protection standards in countries with different levels of development, and its achievement is seen as the internationalization of the "Special 301 Clause" in the United States.
The United States is promoting intellectual property protection internationally not simply to maintain innovation or promote progress, but rather to impose "American standards" on countries with different levels of development, transferring the benefits that developing countries deserve to developed countries, and promoting the maximization of American interests.
High tech barriers hinder the development of emerging countries
In today's world, with the deepening of multipolarity and globalization, emerging markets and developing countries are emerging in groups, and promoting the development of the global intellectual property governance system towards a more just and reasonable direction has become a common voice. In this context, the United States attempts to plan a "higher standard" and more exclusive intellectual property system to consolidate its monopoly position and curb the development of emerging and developing countries.
Ben Atal is the author of "Trade Secrets: The Origins of Knowledge Theft and American Industrial Power.". He pointed out in the book that the logic behind protecting intellectual property in countries such as the United States is hegemonism. In the past few decades, developed countries such as the United States have shifted industries with high pollution and high labor costs to developing countries, with a focus on high-tech industries and services, thus placing greater emphasis on maintaining "knowledge capital".
The United States is not satisfied with the benefits brought by TRIPS, and even criticizes the provisions to ensure access to medical technology and drugs for underdeveloped countries as "intellectual property protection loopholes", seeking to establish more stringent multilateral intellectual property mechanisms.
After long-term closed door negotiations, Western countries led by the United States reached an agreement on the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in 2011. This agreement has raised intellectual property protection standards under TRIPS from multiple aspects, and once it takes effect in the future, it will seriously harm the interests of developing countries under the transmission of international trade mechanisms. In addition, the US led "US Mexico Canada Agreement" has also made significant efforts in the field of intellectual property.
Adopting long arm jurisdiction and high tariffs are commonly used unilateral measures by the United States in the field of intellectual property. The 2022 US Intellectual Property Protection Act, promulgated in January this year, once again expands the scope and means of intellectual property protection, enhancing the available sanctions and scope.
The United States has set up barriers against developing countries in the field of intellectual property protection, and its essence is to "lock" developing countries at the bottom of the global industrial and value chains. The late Stanford Law School professor John Barton once told the media during his lifetime that eliminating imitation strategies in developing countries through intellectual property rules would "completely narrow their choices for economic takeoff.".
Under this policy guidance, American companies have long been accustomed to the "circle awareness movement". In various countries, the abuse of rules, excessive patent applications, and even the application of common vocabulary for trademarks have expanded the definition of basic patents to conceptual principles and operational methods, resulting in the meaningless expansion of intellectual property concepts and more complex intellectual property disputes.
From a "pirate" to a so-called "guardian", the inherent logic of action in the United States has never changed. Stealing textile technology is for the purpose of seeking commercial benefits and developing the domestic economy; The use of intellectual property rules to impose restrictions on the use of advanced technology by emerging and developing countries is also aimed at serving the interests of the United States, maintaining a first mover advantage, and maintaining global hegemony. The relevant practices of the United States distort the original intention of protecting intellectual property, which not only fails to promote innovation and progress, but also creates obstacles for global innovation and development. The act of hegemonism under the guise of protecting intellectual property fully exposes the hypocritical nature of American "guardians.".
