U.S. Announces Global Intellectual Property Plan 292
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.'"
Its cold here in hell (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
On the sole export of the US (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Ooh, watch out, Canada! (Score:5, Interesting)
Before everyone gets too hot about this... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've already seen hundreds of "The US is a dictatorship based on world domination, RIAA MPAA Microsoft Bush corporations hate hate hate" comments as a result of this article. Before everyone starts screaming about the same thing in a frenzy of knee-jerk reactions, keep in mind that many developing nations run factories dedicated to producing illegal copies of software, mostly American, Japanese, and European. In Indonesia one used to be able to find whole software stores with not one legitimate copy of a product in them (probably still can; I was there about six months ago). Lawmakers and judges in these countries officially support intellectual property, but wink at it in practice.
I don't know, let me put this question up to Slashdot's tender mercies: Do we advocate illegal copying of commercial software, and if so, why? Although I know we're supposed to be for the "little guy", and against the corporations, these guys aren't Johnny Downloader; they're companies that make their living solely from copying the products of other people's labor. Is it because "information wants to be free", and that the very idea of exchanging money for software is evil? Is it because Microsoft or Redhat or Oracle are evil, and they should be punished for their crimes by the piracy of their software?
The United States has a big software business. It has copyright laws that are, on paper, agreed to by other countries by international agreement. So why the big fuss when they want them to be enforced?
A quick side note: The availability of illegal proprietary software hinders the adoption of open source in developing nations because Windows is so readily available (about $3 in USD per copy). In addition, the GPL is an intellectual property agreement. If we stand for the violation of commercial intellectual property, we must allow for the violation of open-source intellectual property. Legally, they are no different.
Re:"Train" (Score:1, Interesting)
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. By international standards, American courts are a model of principle and fairness, as amazing as that may seem.
Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
This is ridiculous! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:When questioned about this plan... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can cram that Juris-my-diction crap up your... (Score:2, Interesting)
How US industry was built (Score:1, Interesting)
In his book "Hot Property: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization" he describes the ways and means that the United States acquired technology from the Europeans after US independence. Mostly, the ideas (and plans) were stolen. This is how the US developed a textile industry. While cotton was a major crop in the South, the US had no means to spin it into cloth, and textiles had to be bought from Europe in order to clothe the Army. Until one enterprising (and rich) individual used his wealth to insinuate himself into British society, whereupon he toured the UK for several years, visiting textile factories using letters of introduction from his society friends. The owners of the factories would not allow him to make notes, but he had a photographic memory, and upon his return to the US, he built an even better textile mill than the British had.
There are other stories like this in the book. The point Choate tries to make is that developing countires acquire technology through various means, not the least of which is deception, because the more devloped countries will not share the technology with them. He makes the point that this is how it was in the US until the First World War. When a country's technology matures, they then try to protect it by various means including patents and trade retaliation.
The US got where it is technologically by stealing other's technology in the first place. And now it's in the last phase - complaining when the tables are reversed (according to Choate).
Addendum (Score:1, Interesting)
Charles Dickens did not receive one penny in royalties from US editions of his works. Now, however, the US demands royalties and enforcement of its intellectual property.
Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm. How can we gouge other countries? (Score:2, Interesting)
Trouble is, it's full of Americans.
We have no problem with the individuals, they're great.
It's just that, as a society, their politics really suck.
WTO ruling against them over a trade dispute and ignoring that ruling is just one example.
Re:This is ridiculous! (Score:2, Interesting)
And you're blaming him? Take a look in the mirror!