Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act

S.3361 – Fair Trade with China Enforcement ActA BILL To safeguard certain technology and intellectual property in the United States from export to or influence by the People’s Republic of China and to protect United States industry from unfair competition by the People’s Republic of China, and for other purposes.

Sen. Marco Rubio has proposed this bill whose primary patent-focused clause reads as follows: The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit the export to the People’s Republic of China of any national security sensitive technology or intellectual property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or exported by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Link to Congress.gov

 

 

26 thoughts on “Fair Trade with China Enforcement Act

  1. 6

    Given that companies need to already do export control on their IP – ITAR regulation controlled by the State Department with violations being up to $1 million per violation – this is nothing more than a political document intending to show that the senate is doing something; this despite the fact that everything in the bill is a recitation of that which is actually already done in some way shape or form by various agencies, and the president has already started to tighten the screws via tariffs – one of the stated reasons for the tariffs, in addition to Chinese mercantilism, is IP theft.

    Little Marco living up to his nom de guerre.

    1. 6.1

      Yep little Marco, trying to be relevant. Whatever, i’m sure its poll tested. Just between you and me – (whisper voice) Marco is in the pocket of US Sugar and the COC.

  2. 5

    A BILL To… protect United States industry from unfair competition by the People’s Republic of China…

    What is this “unfair” competition, and in what way is it “unfair”? Also, what do we mean by “United States industry”?

  3. 4

    Given the nature of what intellectual property rights are, and how they are related to the physical entities which embody that which falls within the scope of the exclusions which are the subject of those rights, and how those rights are secured and enforced in each jurisdiction, I find it

    elusive

    to conceive of what is literally meant by:

    “prohibit the export … of intellectual property”,

    and must conclude that technically, something else was meant.

    1. 4.1

      perhaps, what is meant is the “prohibition of the transfer of ownership” from domestic parties to foreign parties is meant

      such would be similar if applied to the case of real property, the land subject to ownership is not prohibited from export (which export is impossible), but transfer of ownership is prohibited.

    2. 4.2

      how they are related to the physical entities which embody that which falls within the scope of the exclusions which are the subject of those rights

      Not to distract from the point of this thread, but this phrase from Anon2 must now carry a different meaning given that patent rights have migrated from being Private personal property rights to being Public franchise property rights.

      Now back to your usual show.

    3. 4.3

      I am wondering the same thing, Anon2. The most sense that I can make of it is to suppose that they mean that one cannot communicate a trade secret from a U.S. person or entity to a P.R.C. person or entity. Suffice it to say, the text here is not as clear as one might like.

            1. 4.3.1.1.1.1

              Creating silence speaks to a white noise function – “police sirens do not” has no intersection with the “create” aspect.

  4. 3

    As written, it appears to literally preclude export of any U.S. Copyrighted material. That would of course include books, magazines, movies, TV programs, software, etc., etc.

    1. 3.1

      Hi Paul

      I think they mean to prohibit transfer of ownership of IP from a domestic entity to a foreign entity, which I assume they would also want to apply to any transfer of partial ownership or granting of any exclusive or non-exclusive license as well. Just a guess.

    2. 3.2

      Where are you seeing that, Paul?

      Separately, I see something very different (and something that might give the anti’s pause):

      3) TECHNOLOGY.—The term “technology” includes goods or services relating to information systems, Internet-based services, production-enhancing logistics, robotics, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, or computing.

      It might be worthwhile to share that list with the courts.

  5. 2

    Wow! Potent stuff. Take that, China!

    America is truly great again. Well, maybe not quite yet. There’s still too many brown people in the office. Every time I see them I just know that some worthy white person was passed over to make some libt@rd happy.

    /Rep u k k k e off

    1. 2.1

      “too many brown people in the office”

      It’s really weird that you’d make this particular diatribe under a post about legislation sponsored by a Hispanic senator.

      Or is it that republicans who are Hispanic are “not really Hispanic”?

      1. 2.1.1

        Further, he (yet again) shows his own Racyest stripes (in his inimical Left way), wherein race has zero to do with anything of the underlying point, and attempts to do so with his “one bucketing of anyone not liberal left (the “libtard” reference).

        Yay 13 and a half years.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          shows his own Racyest stripes (in his inimical Left way)

          Oh lookie it’s the glibertarian showing his “independent” (LOL) colors again.

          Too fre@kin funny.

          1. 2.1.1.1.1

            …because making note of your liberal left bias (and the actual Racy ISM therein), somehow “must be” some “one-bucket” thing, eh Malcolm?

            That’s just more of the Liberal Left C R P.

      2. 2.1.2

        is it that republicans who are Hispanic are “not really Hispanic”?

        You’re getting warmer, Doc!

        Yes, I know there are still some folks out there who’ve permanently deluded themselves into thinking that accusing someone of being r@cist is worse than actually being r@cist.

        But here’s the deal: if you’re a Re p u k k ke, you’re an e f f in r@cist. Period. Don’t like it? Then find a party that doesn’t owe its entire contemporary existence to r@cist voters and stoking the fears of those r@cist voters. Don’t like that choice? Well, boo hoo hoo, you greedy piece of shirt.

        1. 2.1.2.1

          “republicans who are Hispanic are “not really Hispanic”?”

          “You’re getting warmer, Doc!”

          IANAD(BIPOOTV).

          It is just childish to deny people agency like that, and to say that a minority who is conservative is either a “house” you-know-what or “isn’t really” a minority is denying them their agency.

          And assuming your posture that all repubs are definitionally r@cist is not mere, uh, posturing, then I feel sorry for you.

          “you greedy piece of…”

          I’m greedy? Where does that come in?

          (Third try. Some word or another is getting me hung in the filter. I think I’ve located them all now)

        2. 2.1.2.2

          “Yes, I know there are still some folks out there who’ve permanently deluded themselves into thinking that accusing someone of being r@cist is worse than actually being r@cist.”

          I agree with MM that those who mistake his accusations of other people being raycist are worse than his own raycism are themselves clearly mistaken. Clearly his raycism is worse than his accusations of raycism (even when they’re false). Especially morally speaking. And double especially under the boomer morality paradigm.

          However, his false accusations of racism may very well have more real life impact than his own racism emperically speaking. That could account for and even perhaps excuse some people for making the above noted mistake justifiably from their own experience. Especially if they are not learned in morality, and especially the morality of boomers.

  6. 1

    of any national security sensitive technology

    Promulgated by the Department of Redundency Department in cooperation with existing BIS and other security/clearance laws….

Comments are closed.