KOL427 | Lewis & Clark College Debate on Intellectual Property Imperialism

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 427. Yesterday (April 10, 2024) I participated in Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind, 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon, Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? My opponent was Pieter Cleppe. My notes are appended below. https://youtu.be/f_cpqc-oHd0 We got along well and had a nice dinner after the debate. (Unofficial iphone Audio (mp3)) Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind. 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon April 10, 2024 Stephan Kinsella   Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? “Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc, are intangible legal protections that allow creators to monopolize the distribution of their ideas. The international system managing these rights is often praised for promoting and protecting innovation. However, it raises the costs of acquiring new technologies, life-saving medicines, and access to knowledge for developing states. How should international intellectual property standards balance these competing interests?”   Introduction I am a practicing patent and intellectual property, or IP, attorney for 30 years and a libertarian for even longer than that. At the dawn of my career, after many years of research and thought, I came to the conclusion that all forms of IP law are completely unjust. This perspective will inform my remarks today.   Notice my opponent’s remarks were not systematic and did not carefully define the relevant terms. In fact his arguments rested on two false assumptions: that patent and copyright increase innovation, and that IP law is therefore justified.   Imperialism and IP What is imperialism? Imperialism: “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” “Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain.” Now, IP law is prevalent in the west: patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms. There can be little doubt that the west, especially the United States, has used its influence and power to push or even coerce other countries to adopt US-style IP law, primarily patent and copyright This is done sometimes by direct imposition or, more usually, by softer forms of coercion such as investment and free trade agreements or other international treaties Direct imposition/coercion: for example the US expanded Iraqi patent law by decree in 2004, by order of Paul Bremer, the “Administrator” of the “Coalition Provisional Authority” German constitution, or “Basic Law,” 1949, under US domination: Article 96 authorizes the establishment by federal law of the Federal Patent Court Example below: under pressures from the west, the Thai government specifically undertook not to implement Article 8 (on compulsory licensing) for HIV/AIDS treatment Treaties: The Berne Convention already requires member states to have a minimum copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years; the US has added 20 years to this(life plus 70) Treaties such as the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty require member states to maintain certain minimum patent protections The US uses its dominant position to force other countries or regions to adopt US-style IP policies via “free trade” agreements and others like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) 2500 BITs in the world today, many US-sponsored International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, chapter 6, Part B. The TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership), an ostensibly free trade agreement, was actually a disguised attempt to force other countries to strengthen their copyright law For example, although it was never finally ratified, during negotiations, the US then twisted Canada’s arm to extend its copyright term as a condition of even being considered for TPP If you want the benefits of free trade with us, you need to put people in jail for “pirating” our Hollywood cronies’ movies and add 20 years to your copyright term https://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-penalties-coming-thanks-to-tpp-and-acta/ TPP Exposed: WikiLeaks Publishes Secret Trade Text to Rewrite Copyright Laws, Limit Internet Freedom SOPA II? Obama’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Think about it: what does a free trade agreement have to do with local property rights, much less IP rights? The US, at the behest of Hollywood and other special interests, keeps pushing other nations to strengthen protection of copyright. For example, the ACTA(Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), and TPP, which was being pushed by the  entertainment industry “to get SOPA-like laws introduced around the globe.” (Stop Online Piracy Act) SOPA is just another incarnation or variation of related acts, like the  PRO-IP Actof 2008; the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA); and others like the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN), so the TPP is morphing into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership under pressure from US, Mexico’s IP office endorsed ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] and attempted to persuade the legislature to ratify if, after the EU’s parliament rejected it Mexico’s IP Office Surprised Its Congress By Signing ACTA, And Now Hopes To Win Their Support. “Free-trade” pacts export U.S. copyright controls In fact, the Covid-19 Relief Bill Adds Criminal Copyright Streaming Penalties and IP Imperialism The COVID-19 Stimulus Bill Would Make Illegal Streaming a Felony “Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, not less than $17,100,000 is for modernization initiatives, of which $10,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2022: Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount appropriated is available for the maintenance of an ‘‘International Copyright Institute’’ in the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training nationals of developing countries in intellectual property laws and policies…” So there can be no serious doubt that the US and the west have succeeded in having almost every country in the world sign on to the major IP treaties, conform their local law to western IP standards, for patent, copyright, and trademark. Copyright: Berne Convention (1886) and WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996) Patent: Paris Convention (1883); Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) Trademark: Madrid System There is also the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) and the 1994 Uruguay Round which covers IP And the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS) The Mountain of IP Legislation The US also uses its power to nudge or coerce others to strengthen or expand IP via bilateral or multilateral trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties Even though free trade has nothing to do with the local property rights of the other country, much less their IP laws Free trade just means low or zero tariffs so as not to impede trade between nations It does not need to specify the internal legal system or internal property rights regime of each party   Now if the West were somehow encouraging developing nations to adopt stronger property rights and civil liberties, we might not call it imperialism, or we might not mind so much. Everyone seems happy with the way the US transformed Germany and Japan’s legal systems after WWII to have free markets and civil liberties.   The Problem with IP The only way to fully understand the problem of IP imperialism is to understand its nature and why IP laws are unjust and so harmful to nations that are coerced to adopt them In short, patent and copyright laws are completely unjust and should be abolished. They harm consumers by reducing their choice, violating their freedom and rights, increasing prices and reducing innovation. These laws benefit a few major US/western industries—Hollywood/movies (copyright), the music industry (copyright), the pharmaceutical industry (patents/FDA), Big Agriculture (Monsanto) (patents), book and journal publishing (US and Europe; copyright), and some high tech industries (Microsoft, Apple ; copyright, patents, trademark)—at the expense of US consumers and developing countries who are forced to pay higher prices to enrich these US special interests Re Monsanto: See Jeff Tucker, Who Poisoned Our Food? Libertarians often rail against taxation, central banking, government-run schools, redistribution, war, and victimless crime laws like drug laws, but patent and copyright are as bad or worse than most of these things. Very insidious and harmful There is nothing good about IP law There is nothing to “balance” There are no good arguments for IP All IP law should be immediately and completely repealed Western countries certainly should not impose IP law on developing countries   History of IP Statute of Anne 1710, Statute of Monopolies 1623 Elaborate Culminating with the US Constitution’s copyright clause and the expansion of IP globally, leading to modern IP treaties, such as those already mentioned   The purpose and nature of property rights