IP in State of the Union Address:

Trump:

I also promised our citizens that I would impose tariffs to confront China’s massive theft of American jobs. Our strategy worked. Days ago, we signed the groundbreaking new agreement with China that will defend our workers, protect our intellectual property, bring billions of dollars into our treasury, and open vast new markets for products made and grown right here in the United States of America. For decades, China has taken advantage of the United States, now we have changed that but, at the same time, we have perhaps the best relationship we have ever had with China, including with President Xi. They respect what we have done because, quite frankly, they could never believe what they were able to get away with year after year, decade after decade, without someone in our country stepping up and saying: Enough. Now, we want to rebuild our country, and that is what we are doing.

Read the US China Agreement (Phase 1) here: Economic_And_Trade_Agreement_Between_The_United_States_And_China.

With regard to the New NAFTA, IPO has suggested that it does not live-up to the hype with regard to pharmaceutical patent enforcement.  From IPO:

President TRUMP signed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the North America trade pact that will replace NAFTA. The White House states that the USMCA “contains new protections for American intellectual property, ensuring strong, effective protection for American innovators and creators.” IPO has expressed disappointment with the agreement and said that “[i]n the future, IPO hopes to work with the Administration and Congress to create a fair and level playing field with our trading partners and establish appropriate safeguards for American innovators.”

IPO’s basic problem with new NAFTA is its lack of provisions focusing on protections for data submitted to regulatory authorities (especially for biologics).

 

54 thoughts on “IP in State of the Union Address:

  1. 5

    Is it just me . . . or was that the unconstitutional Alice decision that Nancy P ripped up?

    Oh, wait; that can’t be right . . . ’cause she’s from the hornet’s nest of the big tech patent pirates.

    . . . and speaking of IP . . . seems like our POTUS could use a little (O.K., O.K., more than a little) himself.

    1. 5.1

      I am not aware of Pelosi’s IP views and would not (necessarily) equate the Dem-Repuke tussle to fall along any IP ideology.

      1. 5.1.1

        Actually, right now, the D’s are for minimum IP and the R’s are for stronger IP.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          It’s not that black and white, NW.

          Some of the Big Media (oft tied to D) still want strong copyright.

          Some of the R contributors (Big Tech, who, well, contribute big across both aisles) want weak IP.

          As I have posted previously, strong patent views face multiple philosophical attacks, from BOTH the Left and the Right*.

          As I have noted, the Left notion here is not entirely “D” but is more along the lines or Liberal Left and the detesting therein is of any personal property. The Right notion (*), is also not entirely “R” but is aligned with Big Corp (which certainly has its “R” elements), and the detesting therein is of anyone else’s personal property. Efficient Infringement is ALSO aligned more with the “R” aspect of Big Corp.

        2. 5.1.1.2

          In addition to my own views (rather, in stark contrast), Malcolm and his propensity of “one-bucketing” has been notably absent from the political rant intrusions on this blog.

          My guess is that he has been medically sedated because of the Democratic implosion of the botched Iowa caucus and ill-played impeachment fiasco.

          He may need to be put into a medically induced coma come this November (if Ben’s prediction comes to pass).

  2. 4

    IPO’s basic problem with new NAFTA is its lack of provisions focusing on protections for data

    I thought ‘people’ wanted data itself to be free.

    Is this an Orwellian ‘protection for data,’ with some data more protected than other data?

    Maybe someone with ‘whipped out’ credentials in this area can provide an explanation…

  3. 3

    Did you bros hear? We’re either going to be feeling the BERN or the BUTIGEGEGEGEGEGEE!

    1. 3.1

      Warren and Biden (gut punch notwithstanding) both survived Iowa.

      1. 3.1.1

        The only people to win the presidency in the last loooong while all won Iowa tho. So it’s almost sure to be big gay texas pete “pete the mayor” or the comrade bernout if any of them will beat trump. And if they don’t beat trump, who cares? Personally I hope the nominee is big pete. How about you?

        1. 3.1.1.1

          “The only people to win the presidency in the last loooong while all won Iowa tho.”

          President Ted Cruz thanks you for your support.

          1. 3.1.1.1.1

            That’s my bad I meant to say the only (almost) people. Must have gotten taken out in the editing because I thought I wrote it once.

            1. 3.1.1.1.1.1

              In other words, Warren and Biden (gut punch notwithstanding) both survived Iowa.

              Thanks for clarifying that, 6.

            2. 3.1.1.1.1.2

              I wonder how well the bloated, rotting, maggot-filled corpse of the Republican Party will do next November?

              1. 3.1.1.1.1.2.1

                Quite well. Much better than it deserves to do, but no worse than we (the American people) deserve for it to do. Whoever wins, we the people will deserve the credit or blame for that outcome.

                1. I’m going to have to disagree with Greg myself. Indeed, the party structures have more control than “us the people”. And billionaires are buying elections (see bloomberg in VA), so I mean, truthfully, nah, not the people that much at all. Most people are reduced to mere political pawns today.

                2. “the party structures have more control than “us the people”.”

                  I’m not sure that this a meaningful distinction when the People are what empowered the Parties.

                3. Ben,

                  The distinction is meaningful because the parties have taken on a “life of their own.”

                  Sure, ‘real people’ are involved, but there is most definitely an effect beyond any single real person (much like corporations have their identity of a juristic person to separate from the real people involved there).

                4. “The distinction is meaningful because the parties have taken on a “life of their own.””

                  “Sure, ‘real people’ are involved, but there is most definitely an effect beyond any single real person (much like corporations have their identity of a juristic person to separate from the real people involved there).”

                  Correct, the individuals are involved but they operate as a machine block essentially. Even with dissent punished within their ranks and ruthlessly enforced (see Mitt right now and others over the last few years as well as Bernie in total). And generally they, as a block, serve their own interests mostly, with the people’s interests as a vast 2ndary consideration. Though they will throw plentiful crumbs this way and that. One could argue that this is just the historical norm, even in america, and there is at least some merit to that argument. But, when the chips were down in prior ages there were quite often hard calls made in the name of the nation itself rather than the party. Those are somewhat rare thesadays, and they’re def not likely to allow a farmer to become prez nowadays.

                  Another argument is often these people are often the socio-cultural elite (essentially a nearly “noble” new school class of people) anyway and would control things anyway regardless of the party control. They are quite often of a somewhat new “class” of people to emerge from the boomers. Also an argument worth considering and not completely without merit.

                5. 6,

                  I think that the “different class of people” while certainly historically consistent, is less compelling than the “real people” versus non-real people angle.

                  Non-real people may be thought of to include each of juristic persons, persons of legal fiction (e.g., PHOSITA), and synths (to ‘Trek’ the AI).

              2. 3.1.1.1.1.2.2

                NOiP,

                Do you wonder the same about how well the bloated, rotting, maggot-filled corpse of the Democrat Party will do next November?

                If not, do you recognize that YOU are part of the problem?

    2. 3.2

      6,

      You have likely seen the early New Hampshire debate talking heads indicating that both Warren and Biden continue to slip, while both Sanders and Buttigieg continue to climb. Interestingly, it appears that Klubacher actually did better further from her home state of Minnesota.

  4. 2

    Interesting Hypothesis Greg, but it seems that Donny T just blew you out from a few years back. GG bro, no rm.

    1. 2.1

      Ben appears to make a prediction (but does not confirm), and Greg appears to not notice Ben’s prediction.

      It would be an historic event to have an impeached president re-elected.

      It would also be an historical slap in the face of the Democrat party, and to a large degree, a self-inflicted wound.

      1. 2.1.1

        Polls and all show nearly everyone doesn’t care about the “impeachment”. Even in washington DC the rumor is this is making much less of an everyday spash than big K man who still likes bear did.

  5. 1

    I also promised our citizens that I would impose tariffs to confront China’s massive theft of American jobs. Our strategy worked. Days ago, we signed the groundbreaking new agreement with China that will defend our workers [and] protect our intellectual property…

    I suppose that this will not surprise anyone, but the assertion above is fundamentally incoherent. One big reason why non-Chinese firms do not locate more of their operations in China is the Chinese government’s insistence on the disclosure of company-confidential information to Chinese “partner” firms as a precondition to the non-Chinese firm’s operating in China. If this agreement really were to get the Chinese government to back off this practice, that would make it even more attractive for non-Chinese firms to outsource even more of their operations to China, thus further disadvantaging American workers.

    Mercifully, the agreement will likely fall far short of its promised outcomes. China will, in all likelihood, continue to extract company-confidential information as the price of doing business in China. Therefore, it will remain the case that most companies will be reluctant to move their higher-value, more sensitive operations to China.

    In other words, you can protect U.S. workers, or you can protect U.S. trade secrets. You cannot, however, do both.

    1. 1.1

      “In other words, you can protect U.S. workers, or you can protect U.S. trade secrets. You cannot, however, do both.”

      Not with the proposed lever, but what about banning trade with China? That would ostensibly achieve both goals.

      Sounds absurd now, but I’m expecting the second term to make the first look like a light warmup.

      1. 1.1.1

        but I’m expecting the second term to make

        That a prediction, Ben?

        By the way, waking up this morning to the out of touch media making Pelosi’s action of ripping up her copy of the Trump speech to be some sort of “good thing” actually does hew to your ‘prediction’ coming true.

        The Dems still don’t get it.
        The (Left) media still doesn’t get it.

        And no, this is NOT a post in support of the Repukes or the clown in office. Those thinking so ALSO still don’t get it.

        More of the same Partisan bickering is why Trump was elected in the first place.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          More of the same Partisan bickering is why Trump was elected in the first place.

          I know that you don’t like to consider anything beyond the conclusion that you have already reached, but Trump is not the solution to partisan bickering, and no rational person would have anticipated that he would be. While the media may be “out of touch,” that is only with respect to you.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            Trump is no solution to anything.

            My comment is not indicating that a solution was reached. My comment reflects the fact that BOTH sides of the political divide cannot seem to learn the lesson of history and WHY Trump was elected.

            And trust me, the media being out of touch has nothing to do with me. They simply ARE out of touch and my noting so is merely noting a fact. It is not a fact because I note it. I note it because it is a fact.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              “And trust me, the media being out of touch has nothing to do with me. They simply ARE out of touch and my noting so is merely noting a fact”

              They’re too rich, and they’re not forced to live in the flyover country they like to make fun of, and they don’t have to have a whole extended fam there either. If they did, then they wouldn’t likely be having this problem. And they wouldn’t likely have their cushy position and riches.

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1

                It is not a coincidence that the more extreme Liberal Leftisms are concentrated on the coasts.

          2. 1.1.1.1.2

            … because YOU leading with a fallacy and ending in insult is NOT a personal attack…

            The fallacy is your statement implicating that I only am willing to entertain my preordained conclusion.

            Nothing could be further from the truth.

            Your problem is that most often I have already questioned, digested, and understood the issue from MANY viewpoints, and have a strong conclusion because I have already applied critical thinking to the opposite of your intimation.

            You go from your false starting premise to arguing a strawman point of “Trump being a solution,” which entirely misses the point provided. Then you top it off with a proclamation and attack on me personally vis a vis the media which has zero basis in fact.

            Your joining the Greg ‘whine-fest’ below only highlights YOUR hypocrisy.

      2. 1.1.2

        [W]hat about banning trade with China? That would ostensibly achieve both goals.

        I understand what you are trying to suggest here, but this would not work. The reality is more complicated.

        “Banning trade with China” might stop goods moving back and forth, but it does not really stop a company from locating a factory in China to supply (e.g.) the Japanese market, or the EP market, etc. The reality is that global trade is bigger than just the U.S. market, and our ability to affect it is less than we might imagine.

        Moreover, “banning trade with China” would not “defend our workers.” It would cost more jobs than it would save at this point. When a U.S. factory cannot get its steady supply of Chinese inputs, the result is not that the work of assembling the inputs on-shores to the U.S. Rather, the U.S. factory simply shutters until a new supply chain can be found, and the workers are furloughed (at best) temporarily.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          I agree with Greg that the reality is more complicated.

          But that complicated nature does NOT mean that the US Sovereign should just throw up their hands and surrender to the Big Corp international companies and their desired state of Corporatacracy.

          Global trade and its intricacies does NOT necessitate such.

          What is necessary is understanding how a strong patent system is in the best interest of THIS Sovereign (no matter how much Greg may want a One World Order view of any one Sovereign’s patent system).

          Sure, a strong US patent system may be chosen to be partaken of by most any entity (foreign or domestic), but the bottom line is that patent law — being Sovereign Law — does have location effects and the Sovereign of the US benefits from having the best Quid Pro Quo deal of the entire world, and wealth will be better generated HERE in this Sovereign as a direct result of a strong patent system.

          1. 1.1.2.1.1

            “But that complicated nature does NOT mean that the US Sovereign should just throw up their hands and surrender to the Big Corp international companies and their desired state of Corporatacracy.”

            Already happened bruh. The “establishment” already did that long ago.

            “Sure, a strong US patent system may be chosen to be partaken of by most any entity (foreign or domestic), but the bottom line is that patent law — being Sovereign Law — does have location effects and the Sovereign of the US benefits from having the best Quid Pro Quo deal of the entire world, and wealth will be better generated HERE in this Sovereign as a direct result of a strong patent system.”

            I’m not 100% sure I follow this.

            1. 1.1.2.1.1.1

              I’m not 100% sure I follow this.

              That is because it is gobbledygook (“location effects,” “best Quid Pro Quo deal of the entire world,””strong patent system,” etc.). None of these phrases mean anything. They are just words about words, flung randomly across the page in the hope that the reader will feel convinced to agree with the speaker’s thesis, despite the utter lack of any logical connection between premise and conclusion.

              1. 1.1.2.1.1.1.1

                The inte11ectual coward who refuses to engage should also NOT snipe from the sidelines. Greg chooses not to engage because his poor liddle feelings were hurt when he could not defend his position against mere “words about words.”

                Mighty embarrassing for Greg.

              2. 1.1.2.1.1.1.2

                remind you of anybody?

                1. They are just words about words, flung randomly across the page in the hope that the reader will feel convinced to agree with the speaker’s thesis, despite the utter lack of any logical connection between premise and conclusion.

                  remind you of anybody?

                  Justice Kennedy is, I suppose, the other person whose writing answers to that description.

              3. 1.1.2.1.1.1.3

                +1

              4. 1.1.2.1.1.1.4

                It’s a bu ttsore convention of gamesters that I have tossed about like rag dolls…

                Gee, how surprising that they want to join Greg’s whinefest…

                Guys — instead of spending your time whining, why not practice your “words about words” so that you can actually keep up with me…?

              5. 1.1.2.1.1.1.5

                None of [“location effects,” “best Quid Pro Quo deal of the entire world,” or “strong patent system”] mean anything. They are just words about words…

                To prove this to yourself, consider a hypothetical dispute between Jim and Karen. Jim asserts that Costa Rica has a common law justice system, while Karen asserts that Costa Rica has a Roman law justice system. The way that Jim & Karen resolve this dispute is that they consult commonly received definitions of common law and Roman law. Then Jim & Karen compare the objective marks of these commonly received definitions to the observed reality of the Costa Rican justice system, and determine whether the common law marks or the Roman law marks more closely approximate the observed reality of Costa Rican justice.

                Now, imagine that Jim asserts that the U.S. patent system grants “strong patents” (or that the U.S. has the “best Quid Pro Quo deal of the entire world,” etc), and that Karen makes a contrary assertion. How do they resolve that dispute between themselves? What are the commonly received definitions of any of these phrases?

                To ask the question is to answer it. None of these phrases have a commonly received definition. Each phrase means in Jim’s mouth whatever Jim wants it to mean in his secret, devious heart, and Karen can ascribe to the same phrase any meaning at all that she whimsically prefers to ascribe. Each phrase has a million different meanings in a million different mouths, which is as much as to say that none of these phrases has any real meaning at all. Just words about words.

                As Wolfgang Pauli said in another context, the paragraph that 6 does not follow is “not even wrong.” It does not have enough semantic content even to bear the weight of a dispute over its truth or falsity.

                1. I need to give you the same advice that you have often given me. There is no point in arguing with fools, especially anon, who will respond with personal attacks.

                2. For someone that refuses to even see the content of the person to whom you wish to take exception to, you are very full of your opinions Greg.

                  Gee, maybe if you did more than snipe from the sidelines, things like “strong” and “best” would make sense to you.

                  Then again, your own positions, being LESS strong and certainly NOT best would be exposed (and your feelings hurt).

            2. 1.1.2.1.1.2

              Greg is all about the Big Pharma notion that any one particular nation’s patent laws mean very little because it is “all about” the World advancing.

              He couldn’t give a rip if the US advances or not.

            3. 1.1.2.1.1.3

              Already happened bruh. The “establishment” already did that long ago.

              Certainly, Corporatocracy has a substantial power position — but the full blown dystopian version is NOT reality, and strong patent rights (which advance disruptive innovation) remain a key factor in mitigating Big Corp.

              Naturally Greg will denigrate this understanding, given his “whipped out” credentials of being a Big Pharma mouthpiece.

      3. 1.1.3

        [W]hat about banning trade with China?

        This really does far less for American workers than many imagine. Banning trade with China does not affect a decision to off-shore an operation to Vietnam, or Bangladesh, or Mexico. Whether an operation moves from the U.S. to China or from the U.S. to Bangladesh does not materially alter the outcome for the displaced U.S. workers.

        In view of your “expect[ation that[ the second term [will] make the first look like a light warmup,” I suppose that the follow-up will be “well, what about banning all imports?” Two points about that:

        (1) It cannot be done. The war on drugs has shown what follows when you try to stop a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. You can gum up the works—make the transactions slower, or costlier—but you cannot really stop the transactions en masse. And that is an example drawn from a product (intoxicating narcotics) on which there is a widespread social opprobrium. Imagine how ineffective will be the interruption to mutually agreeable commerce when the products being stopped are garments, or winter strawberries, or car tires (etc)—things that no one regards as wrongful or injurious.

        (2) As noted in my 1.1.2, this will not actually benefit U.S. workers. That sort of interruption to global supply chains will drag U.S. production down to near zero in a variety of industries.

        1. 1.1.3.1

          Uh, I don’t actually think banning trade with China would be effective or good for the country…

          1. 1.1.3.1.1

            Sure, I realize that you do not. I am just using your post as a spring-board for some further thoughts. I know that you have better sense than that.

            1. 1.1.3.1.1.1

              I know that you have better sense than that.

              Is that before or after you realize that he is predicting a reelection of (now acquitted) President Trump…?

              1. 1.1.3.1.1.1.1

                In a blatantly one-sided piece (showing again that certain media just have not learned the lesson), an analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN
                Updated 7:56 AM EST, Mon February 10, 2020 pretty much ‘echoes’ Ben’s prediction.

                As the Democrat party retreats to a ‘who can beat Trump’ drum beat, they are oblivious to the fact that they are marching in step to Trump’s tactics.

          2. 1.1.3.1.2

            Uh, I don’t actually think banning trade with China would be effective or good for the country…

            cf

            but what about banning trade with China? That would ostensibly achieve both goals.

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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