New China Trade Deal

Timothy Birdnow

An article at Pajamas Media makes the case that the new deal Trump has negotiated with China will enhance our national security.

From the article:

• The Chinese have already stolen top-secret information on our submarine warfare capabilities. They’ve managed to compromise data on our F-35 fighter jetsas well as numerous other defense systems. This theft not only costs the United States taxpayer dollars, but it also presents a massive problem for our defense infrastructure. Thankfully, it’s a concern that President Trump’s trade deal directly addresses.
• While not detailing an outright ban on China’s illicit theft of intellectual property, the trade deal does take a few preventative measures designed to curb China’s nefarious activities. The deal negotiatesstronger legal protections for a variety of intellectual property types, including copyrights, trademarks, and patents. At least in theory, the agreement binds China to tighter restrictions regarding the respect of intellectual property rights. It would force the Chinese government to cease pressuring foreign companies to supply IP in exchange for market access. Additionally, it would bar China from engaging in certain unscrupulous behaviors to acquire foreign technology.
• From a national security perspective, the deal is a welcome step in the right direction. It would be foolish to assume that China’s communist government would cease its theft of intellectual property altogether. Yet, in the very least, the deal will slow China down, allowing the U.S. government to erect additional protective measures around our most sensitive national security technology

The problem is, as usual, America having the will to enforce this. China will cheat. There is no doubt about that; the Chinese are not innovative in the way that we and they cannot keep up with us without stealing our work. It really is that simple. I don't see any way a trade deal will change that.

But at least we are putting down some standards. We should look at ways to punish China iif they do cheat.

Continuing with this article:


Now here I break with the author. Copyright has gotten completely out of control. As regular readers may remember, the Aviary was sued for posting a photograph of the outside of a building that was in the New York Post. The photographer makes his living doing that - he gets his pictures published then sues any unsuspecting person who posts them. I thought in this instance they fell under fair usage. But there is almost NO fair usage in this country for photographs.. Even songs; Happy Birthday was just put into the public domain by a judge; it was written in 1893, and the heirs to the author kept trying to renew the copyright. They used to sue people, too, for singing it at birthday parties and whatnot. It was ridiculous; they rarely used it in movies (preferring "He's a Jolly Good Fellow" because they didn't have to pay royalties). While nobody denies the right to profit from your own intellectual property, a hundred and twenty years is a bit excessive for a song. But it's hardly unusual; the standard rule is the life of the author PLUS fifty years.

It has reached the point where nobody can create anything without being in danger of copyright infringement. There were a number of cases where older ex-stars sued younger stars for songs that had a riff that sounded like something from their own. It's gotten to where a three or four note interlude is leading to big buck lawsuits.

At this point copyright is stifling creativity and initiative, not the other way around. Nobody creates something in a vacuum.

Of course, inventions and especially high tech are more obvious, and it is fairly easy to see where someone has stolen an idea. That should be protected.

But even there, one wonders. Insulin, for example, is something that is absolutely necessary to some people to acquire. In the early days it was made from animals (insulin in many animals is quite similar to ours, enough so that it worked in people, although some had reactions to it.) Frederick Banting and Charles Best - the two scientists who invented the process to purify insulin - sold their invention for one dollar to to the University of Toronto (who farmed it out to Eli Lilly they were more interested in getting this to market and saving lives than making the billion dollars they would have made. (Banting, who cut his research assistant Best in for credit when he didn't have to, was a saintly man who is unquestionably in Heaven right now.)

At any rate, insulin is now ridiculously expensive, because the drug companies have gotten animal insulin largely banned in the U.S. and because they hold a patent on the process of making synthetic insulin. The government won't approve a generic because they say the patent is on the PROCESS, not the actual substance. So the diabetic is in permanent indebted status, trying desperately to pay for the hormone that his body doesn't produce.

I use a lot of insulin. I buy it at Walmart, where I can get it cheap. Say what you will about Walmart, but I wouldn't be alive now were it not for them. God bless Sam Walton and company!

My point?  Patent law is failing America in fundamental ways. Yes, it's making a lot of money for some people, but at what cost? It was always understood that after a certain point something was in the public domain. No longer; inventions, writings, music, etc. are now eternally patented or copyrighted.

Is it any wonder why they keep making the same movies, year after year, or variants of the same? Why our music has become utterly generic and bland? Why we haven't produced any decent literature in decades? It's because anyone who sticks their necks out will get sued.

I know.

That said, I am glad we are going after the Chinese. They've got no such prissy scruples about who owns what. To China, the State owns everything.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1097 words, total size 8 kb.