State of the Union and IP

President Trump’s State of the Union Speech included only a small focus on intellectual property rights — and only in the international sphere:

We are now making it clear to China that after years of targeting our industries, and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and wealth has come to an end. . . .

Our new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — or USMCA — will replace NAFTA and deliver for American workers: bringing back our manufacturing jobs, expanding American agriculture, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring that more cars are proudly stamped with four beautiful words: made in the USA.

19 thoughts on “State of the Union and IP

  1. 7

    This disgusting criminal hypocrite who pays pr 0stitutes to f ck him while his pregnant wife is in the hospital will talk about non-existent job protection out of one side of his mouth and then turn around and force Federal employees to work without pay or just delete their jobs.

    F ck him and every Rep u k k ke or gilbert@rian @ h0le who voted for him or refused to speak up against him. Forever. Never forget.

    1. 7.1

      Your rant of feelings and one-bucketing is noted.

    2. 7.2

      “who pays pr 0stitutes to f ck him”

      When was that? Stormy?

      MM bruh, why not just choose Greatness?

  2. 6

    Slightly off-topic, but in case you were curious, Pres. Trump’s claim last night that “in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years” was… not true.

  3. 5

    We are now making it clear to China that after years of targeting our industries, and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and wealth has come to an end…

    Not that I expected better from Pres. Trump, but this is confused thinking. The IP theft actually protects American jobs. That is to say, if one moves manufacturing to China, the risk of IP theft increases greatly. It is essentially impossible to open a CN factory and maintain the trade secrecy of certain manufacturing techniques that are successfully kept secret in the U.S. The knowledge that moving manufacturing to China will result in loss of valuable trade secrets actually serves to keep at least some of that manufacturing here in the U.S.

    If the U.S. actually successfully pressures the PRC to crack down on trade secret theft in CN factories, the result will be that it is more attractive to move manufacturing to the PRC. This will reduce the incidence of manufacturing (and manufacturing employment) in the U.S.

    There may well be 1,000,001 reasons to try to reduce IP theft by CN, but U.S. jobs is not among that list of reasons.

    1. 5.1

      confused thinking. The IP theft actually protects American jobs.

      ????

      Double take of the day award (and that’s something, given Malcolm’s rants elsewhere)

      1. 5.1.1

        … seeing David’s comment below, we should all be aware that IP theft does NOT come only from any such “if you build a factory here” purloining of Trade Secrets in that process.

    2. 5.2

      There may well be 1,000,001 reasons to try to reduce IP theft by CN, but U.S. jobs is not among that list of reasons.

      This is way too nuanced for the regular commenters here, Greg. I commend the effort, however.

      Personally, I’d like to see you spend a moment or two explaining your (bizarre) belief that all diagnostic methods are ineligible (as expressed on the other thread. How do you come up with that exactly? What’s the logic?

      Thanks.

      1. 5.2.1

        Greg’s view is the opposite of “nuanced” – as already noted.

        Not surprising though that you jump at an opportunity to diminish something that just may portend to a driver for stronger patents.

        Your cognitive dissonance is not “nuanced” either.

  4. 3

    Anyone have any idea of how the “USMCA” proposes to change IP protection? Or how / whether it differs from NAFTA in any way but the label?

    Has anyone seen any movement on the China front in terms of IP protection? It’s my understanding that the “doing business in China requires a mainland partner who must be informed of trade secrets, which are then ripe for unauthorized use” aspect – is a significant issue that goes back 10, 20 years. I don’t have the background to evaluate it on its merits, and I definitely don’t know if it has changed in the era of tariff wars.

    1. 3.1

      If you will please forgive a (not very) personal question, are you the David Stein who recently lateraled into the Reston office of HDP? It is a common enough name that I am curious whether the notice I just saw from my old firm refers to yourself, or another David Stein.

      1. 3.1.1

        To your point, of the 29 registered “Stein’s, “there are three registered attorneys with a first name of David.

    2. 3.2

      Anyone have any idea of how the “USMCA” proposes to change IP protection? Or how / whether it differs from NAFTA in any way but the label?

      The US gives 10 years of data exclusivity to biologic drugs. Canada and Mexico currently each give less than that, but under the USMCA CA & MX both agree to bring their data exclusivity terms up to the US term. I am not sure if that is the only IP related provision of the USMCA, but it is a provision of which I happen to be aware.

      Has anyone seen any movement on the China front in terms of IP protection?

      Depends on what you mean by “movement.” It has definitely been my experience that getting a CN patent or trademark now is much easier than it was ~10 years ago.

      With regard to the trade secret appropriation (or misappropriation as some would call it), I have seen no movement. Nor—for all of the bluster, prevarication, and posturing from this administration—will there likely be any movement any time soon. The PRC quite rationally realizes that they can make great economic gains at this stage in their development process simply by copying what companies from other parts of the world do. So long as that remains the case, CN will continue to uses its considerable market power to obtain access to the information that they need to copy to keep this forward movement going.

      Eventually, they will have appropriated all of the information that there is to appropriate, and CN companies will be sitting on the technological frontier. At that point, there will be no more copying to be done, and they will have to make their own innovation happen. In other words, at some point the trade secret appropriate issue will solve itself. In the meantime, however, there is very little leverage that any of us (CA, DE, US, etc) have to stop such trade secret appropriation. It is no surprise, then, that years of jawboning the PRC have achieved very little, and that Pres Trump has achieved no more than any of his predecessors (despite what his administration will claim on that score).

  5. 2

    Tough to watch this without wondering whether it’s just another rerun episode of The Apprentice . . . and is that Omarosa we see in the gallery?

    Ugh.

  6. 1

    Empty rhetoric (until we can see ourselves rejecting the anti-patentism that runs amuck (aided and abetted by more than one anti-patent philosophy).

    1. 1.1

      Donny T. Empty Rhetoric. I LoLed.

      1. 1.1.1

        I like DERT better –
        Donald Empty Rhetoric Trump

        It was pretty easy for him to turn his business posturing into political posturing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture