China And Intellectual Property; NPR, Weekend Edition Saturday, April 7, 2018

NPR, Weekend Edition Saturday; China And Intellectual Property

"NPR's Scott Detrow speaks about intellectual property theft and tariffs with Dan Eberhart, CEO of Canary, an oilfield services company. It manufactures precision valves in the U.S. and China."

What’s Intellectual Property and Does China Steal It?; Bloomberg, March 22, 2018

Grant Clark and Shelly Hagan, Bloomberg; What’s Intellectual Property and Does China Steal It?

"2. What did Trump do?

In his first trade action aimed directly at China, Trump ordered that tariffs be imposed on a broad range of goods, which could include everything from tennis shoes and baseball hats to lingerie and consumer electronics. The U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has 15 days to propose a list of goods that will face higher tariffs. The levies would apply to about 10 percent of the value of China’s exports to the U.S., but aren’t restricted to products the U.S. says China made in violation of American IP. Trump is also directing officials to pursue a World Trade Organization complaint against China for discriminatory licensing practices and to propose new restrictions on Chinese investments within 60 days to safeguard strategic U.S. technology.

3. What’s the rationale for all this?

Lighthizer just completed a seven-month investigation into China and intellectual property at Trump’s direction. The $50 billion figure is based on U.S. estimates of the lost corporate earnings caused by China’s alleged IP theft or forced technology transfers. U.S. officials were said to find strong evidence that China uses foreign-ownership restrictions to compel American companies to switch technology to local firms and that China supports and conducts cyberattacks on U.S. companies to access trade secrets."

How much has the US lost from China's IP theft?; CNN, March 23, 2018

Sherisse Pham, CNN; How much has the US lost from China's IP theft?

"The United States has long said that intellectual property theft has cost the US economy billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs.

So just how much damage has it done?

The United States Trade Representative, which led the seven-month investigation into China's intellectual property theft and made recommendations to the Trump administration, found that "Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually."

Forget tariffs, China's alleged intellectual property theft a bigger threat to market: Analyst; CNBC, March 2, 2018

Ingrid Angulo, CNBC; Forget tariffs, China's alleged intellectual property theft a bigger threat to market: Analyst

"Trump has said in the past that he's considering a big fine as part of the probe into China's alleged theft.

While Trump did not specify what he meant by a "fine" against China, the 1974 trade law that authorized an investigation into China's alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property allows him to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods or other trade sanctions until China changes its policies.

If the Chinese are found guilty, [chief investment strategist at ClearBridge Investments Jeffrey] Schulze fears that the nation will retaliate."

China has shot far ahead of the US on deep-learning patents; Quartz, March 2, 2018

Echo Huang, Quartz; China has shot far ahead of the US on deep-learning patents

"China is outdoing the US in some kinds of AI-related intellectual property, according to a report published in mid-February by US business research firm CB Insights. The number of patents with the words “artificial intelligence” and “deep learning” published in China has grown faster than those published in the US, particularly in 2017, the firm found. Publication is a step that comes after applications are filed but before a patent is granted. The firm looked at data from the European patent office.

When it comes to deep learning—an advanced subset of machine learning, which uses algorithms to identify complex patterns in large amounts of data—China has six times more patent publications than the US, noted the report (pdf, p.7)...

...[W]hen it comes to patents using the term “machine learning,” often conflated with the term AI, China still lags behind. Searching patents for “machine learning” found the US had 882 related patent publications while China had 77 in 2017."

Brain Power Pays Off With Japan’s Intellectual Property Exports; Bloomberg, January 15, 2018

Connor Cislo, Bloomberg; Brain Power Pays Off With Japan’s Intellectual Property Exports

"Given the importance of IP to their economies, Japan and other advanced nations such as the U.S. are trying to strengthen protections in this area.

Japan nearly saw its preferred IP protection regime realized in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, until President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the agreement threw the pact's future into doubt.

The remaining 11 TPP members have suspended multiple IP-related provisions from the original agreement. Meanwhile, another large trade deal championed by China, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, doesn’t address IP to the satisfaction of Japanese businesses."

Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch By Jano Gibson; ABC, July 26, 2017

Jano Gibson, ABC; Bondi Beach at centre of trademark tussle between Sydney cosmetics company and Abercrombie & Fitch

"The United States retailer, which has no presence in Australia, is the registered owner of the 'Bondi Beach' trademark in the US for a range of products, including beauty lotions, body sprays and fragrances.

When Sydney company Bondi Wash applied to trademark its name in the US, it was prevented from doing so because of the similarity to Abercrombie & Fitch's existing rights.

The case has raised concerns about foreign companies gaining exclusive ownership of high-profile Australian place names in their branding."

Amazon takes on small WA retailer Live Clothing in 'Glamazon' trademark stoush; ABC, July 24, 2017

Frances Bell, ABC; Amazon takes on small WA retailer Live Clothing in 'Glamazon' trademark stoush

"Live Clothing has been the registered owner of the Glamazon trademark for clothing, footwear and headgear since 1999, but has recently applied to extend the trademark to a wider range of retail and wholesale services.

But documents lodged with IP Australia show the application has been opposed by Amazon Technologies, which owns the trademark for the name "Glamazon fashionweek".

Glamazon is also the name of an internal Amazon social group for LGBTIQ employees, promoting diversity in the workplace."

Fair Use Vs Fair Dealing: How Australian Copyright Law Differs; Lifehacker, July 18, 2017

Nicolas Suzor, Lifehacker; Fair Use Vs Fair Dealing: How Australian Copyright Law Differs

"Copyright law sometimes allows you to use someone else’s work - as long as it’s fair. In Australia this is called “fair dealing”, and it’s different to the law in the US, which is called “fair use”. We explain the difference.

These exceptions are safety valves in copyright law – they allow lots of beneficial uses that society has agreed copyright owners should not be able to charge for, or worse, prevent.

There’s a serious ongoing debate about whether Australia should update its copyright laws and introduce fair use. The current law is not easy to understand – our research shows that Australian creators are often confused about their rights – and many think we already have fair use.

Fair dealing: What can you do in Australia?

The key difference between “fair use” and “fair dealing” is that Australia’s “fair dealing” laws set out defined categories of acceptable uses. As we will see, “fair use” in the US is much more flexible.

Australian copyright law sets out five situations where use of copyrighted material without permission may be allowed:

• research or study
• criticism or review
• parody or satire
• reporting the news
• provision of legal advice.

We’ll explain the first four, as they’re most useful to the average Australian."

APPLE VS. QUALCOMM: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW; Digital Trends, June 20, 2017

Christian de Looper, Digital Trends, APPLE VS. QUALCOMM: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW

"Update: We revised this post to reflect the content of Apple’s amended court filings, which allege that Qualcomm’s licensing practices are “illegal” and push back against Qualcomm’s counterclaims. 

Apple and Qualcomm are engaged in what will likely be a yearslong and epic battle. Following news that Qualcomm had been charging heightened royalties for use of its tech, as well as reports indicating Qualcomm required Apple to pay a percentage of the iPhone’s revenue in return for the use of Qualcomm patents, Apple has sued the company in three countries.

In the United States, Apple is suing Qualcomm for a hefty $1 billion — but it has also filed a lawsuit in China for $145 million, as well as in the United Kingdom. Now, Qualcomm is following with its own countersuit (but losing quite a bit of money).

Here’s everything you need to know about the lawsuit battle so far."

U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Impact on Intellectual Property; Inside Counsel, March 3, 2017

Amanda Ciccatelli, Inside Counsel; 

U.S. Withdrawal from TPP Impact on Intellectual Property

"Further, the U.S. withdrawal from the TPP may have major global implications for IP rights. As the TPP was being negotiated, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was slowly progressing in the background. The RCEP is a Chinese- and Indian-led alternative to TPP that includes all seven of the Asian and Oceanic states in TPP, plus South Korea, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Cambodia. 

“But the RCEP is almost certain to provide less protection for IP rights – especially pharmaceutical patent rights – than the TPP would have,” Rich said. “India and China are traditionally hostile to strong pharmaceutical patent protections of the type found under U.S. law, calling such patent protections ‘evergreening.’ “So, the rejection of the TPP is likely to allow an alternative, less protective paradigm for international IP rights to arise in its place.”"

America as a Place of Innovation: Great Inventors and the Patent System: Thursday, February 16, 2017

America as a Place of Innovation: Great Inventors and the Patent System: 

[Kip Currier: Looking forward to attending this panel discussion at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.]

DATE AND TIME

Thu, February 16, 2017

1:00 PM – 2:30 PM EST

LOCATION

National Museum of American History

1300 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C 20013

DESCRIPTION

The Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution and the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) at Antonin Scalia Law School invite you to a panel discussion at the National Museum of American History.

This panel will explore the history of innovation and the broader social, political, and legal context for inventors in late nineteenth century America. The panel will address the historical role of patents, research-intensive startups, litigation, and licensing during an important period of disruptive innovation.

• Speakers:

  • Prof. Ernest Freeberg, University of Tennessee, discussing Thomas Edison and how the invention of the electric light impacted American culture. Professor Freeberg is the author of the book The Age of Edison: Electric Light and the Invention of Modern America(Penguin, 2014)
  • Prof. Christopher Beauchamp, Brooklyn Law School, discussing Alexander Graham Bell and the legal disputes that erupted out of Bell’s telephone patent. Professor Beauchamp is the author of the book Invented by Law: Alexander Graham Bell and the Patent That Changed America (Harvard University Press, 2015)
  • Prof. Adam Mossoff, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, discussing early American innovation by Charles Goodyear, Samuel Morse, and Joseph Singer.Professor Mossoff is the author of the influential article “The Rise and Fall of the First American Patent Thicket: The Sewing Machine War of the 1850s.”
  • Moderator: Arthur Daemmrich, Director, Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation
  • Closing Remarks: Alan Marco, Chief Economist, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

'This is the new reality': Panelists speak for Pitt cyber security institute; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/3/17

Chris Potter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; 

'This is the new reality': Panelists speak for Pitt cyber security institute:

[Kip Currier: This was a fascinating and informative panel at the University of Pittsburgh on February 2, 2017, discussing cyberhacking, efforts to identify hackers and hacker-sanctioning actors/nation states, and responses to hacking threats and incidents.

Two comments (which I'll paraphrase below, without benefit of a transcript) by panelist and Russian journalist Andrei Soldatov, stood out for me:

1. Vladimir Putin's Russia has deftly understood and exploited the distinction between "cybersecurity" and "information security" (the West, Soldatov contends, has focused more on the former).

2. Under Stalin, technical training in Soviet universities and technical institutes did not include study of ethics and the humanities (largely relegated to those in medical professions).]

"The precise identity and motivations of the hackers who leaked sensitive Democratic emails during last year’s presidential election may never be known. But they left fingerprints that were familiar to Andrei Soldatov, a journalist who has written about Russia’s security state for the past 20 years.

Like much of the propaganda back home, Mr. Soldatov said at a University of Pittsburgh panel discussion Thursday, “It’s not about building the positive narrative, it’s about building the negative narrative. … To say everyone is corrupt and no one can be trusted — people will accept this.”

Mr. Soldatov was one of four panelists convened by Pitt’s fledgling Institute of Cyber Law, Policy, and Security and its new director, former U.S. Attorney David Hickton. The discussion drew a few hundred people to the first public event for the center, which focuses on cybercrime and cybersecurity."

After 15 Years In WTO, China Still Weak On Many IP Rights Rules, US Says; Intellectual Property Watch, 1/10/17

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; 

After 15 Years In WTO, China Still Weak On Many IP Rights Rules, US Says:

"Innovation and intellectual property rights have set the United States apart from competitors in recent history, and China seems intent on closing that gap any way it can. A US trade office report out this week on China’s compliance with World Trade Organization rules 15 years after accession show the magnitude of China’s continuing compliance problems related to intellectual property rights. 

“Serious concerns,” “problems,” “challenges,” “weakness,” “insufficient.” These and many other negative terms fill the 200-page report’s sections describing China’s treatment of intellectual property rights. There is plenty of progress cited too, but the report reads as an open to-do list with new issues arising all the time. One question is how much of this behaviour could be brought to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Another might be what the new US administration is going to do differently about this list.

The Office of the US Trade Representative’s 2016 Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance is available here [pdf]."

Intellectual Property: Copyright rules make us break the law 80 times a day, says Productivity Commission; Sydney Morning Herald, 12/20/26

Peter Martin, Intellectual Property: Copyright rules make us break the law 80 times a day, says Productivity Commission:

"If you are anything like the typical Australian, you probably break the copyright law 80 times a day, according to figures included in the Productivity Commission's final report to the government on intellectual property.

Most of the breaches are harmless, things such as including a copy of an email in the reply to an email. But the commission says that laws that are routinely flouted are bad laws, bringing themselves into disrepute.

In place of the labyrinthine system of complicated rules governing what can or can't be copied, the report released on Tuesday recommends the US system of fair use, under which the use of copyrighted material is legal so long as it is fair, taking into account the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the amount copied and the effect on the potential market value of the work."

China Smartphone Makers Snap Up Patents in Fight for Market Dominance; Wall Street Journal, 6/20/16

Juro Osawa, Wall Street Journal; China Smartphone Makers Snap Up Patents in Fight for Market Dominance:

"China’s smartphone makers increasingly are turning to patents as ammunition as they try to reel in global leaders Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co."

Asia On The Heels Of US And Europe In Patent Applications At WIPO; Developing Countries Lagging; Intellectual Property Watch, 3/16/16

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Asia On The Heels Of US And Europe In Patent Applications At WIPO; Developing Countries Lagging:

"China, Japan and South Korea are among the top five countries filing international patent applications at the World Intellectual Property Organization, while the United States continues to lead in patent and trademark applications. Far behind, developing countries seem to be having a hard time catching up...

The top 10 countries filing under the PCT in 2015 were the US (57,385), Japan (44,235), and China (29,846), followed by Germany, South Korea, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden.

According to a WIPO press release, the US has filed the largest annual number of international patent applications for 38 years running. Patent-filing activity by China-based innovators accounted for much of the overall growth in applications, according to the release.

Computer technology and digital communication saw the largest numbers of filing in 2015, each exceeding 16,000, according to the release."

Asia On The Heels Of US And Europe In Patent Applications At WIPO; Developing Countries Lagging; Intellectual Property Watch, 3/16/16

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Asia On The Heels Of US And Europe In Patent Applications At WIPO; Developing Countries Lagging:

"China, Japan and South Korea are among the top five countries filing international patent applications at the World Intellectual Property Organization, while the United States continues to lead in patent and trademark applications. Far behind, developing countries seem to be having a hard time catching up...

The top 10 countries filing under the PCT in 2015 were the US (57,385), Japan (44,235), and China (29,846), followed by Germany, South Korea, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden.

According to a WIPO press release, the US has filed the largest annual number of international patent applications for 38 years running. Patent-filing activity by China-based innovators accounted for much of the overall growth in applications, according to the release.

Computer technology and digital communication saw the largest numbers of filing in 2015, each exceeding 16,000, according to the release."

The International Fight Over Marcel Duchamp's Chess Set; Atlantic, 9/8/15

Quinn Norton, Atlantic; The International Fight Over Marcel Duchamp's Chess Set:

"Often called Moral Rights, French creators and their heirs are entitled not only to remuneration, but a high degree of creative control on how their works are used or represented in the world. It was this idea, of controlling how the artist's creation is used by others, that brought the estate to issue their Cease and Desist against Kildall and Cera. Farcot is particularly interested in how 3D printing is influenced by the mishmash of Berne laws governing the world. I spoke with him while he was waiting on an Ultimaker print of toys he was giving children in an upcoming weekend workshop he was teaching.

“It’s not black or white,” Farcot said. “It’s not easy for the creators, Kildall and Cera, to... say they should go ahead, go to court and they will win easily.” Facing a ruinously expensive legal fight thousands of miles and an ocean away, Kildall and Cera backed down. They quietly removed the files from Thingiverse, and negotiated a resolution with Duchamp’s heirs.

If the case was too hard to fight in French court, it would have been almost too easy to fight in U.S. court, the jurisdiction that could affect the lives of Kildall and Cera. “So under U.S. law, the chess pieces are absolutely in the public domain... and a U.S. court won’t honor French moral rights. I don’t see any practical way for the Duchamp estate to sue over the 3D-printed chess pieces in a U.S. court,” said Mitch Stoltz, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes in intellectual property."

Why deny US-style Fair Use copyright laws to Australians?; Sydney Morning Herald, 2/19/14

Adam Turner, Sydney Morning Herald; Why deny US-style Fair Use copyright laws to Australians? :

"Why did we gain the restrictions of US copyright law but not the rights?...

After an 18-month review, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has backed calls to bring Australia's copyright laws into the modern age with "Fair Use" exemptions. The change would streamline our current hotch-potch copyright laws, which aren't designed to cope with the rapid pace of technological change.

Australia's current copyright laws need to be rewritten to account for every new technology, an approach which saw everyone breaking the law for almost thirty years until we gained the right to record free-to-air television in 2007. The ALRC's "Copyright and the Digital Economy" report wants to replace this with proactive Fair Use laws which use four technologically-neutral "fairness factors" to determine whether an act of copying is within the law.

Federal Attorney-General George Brandis agrees that copyright laws need an overhaul, describing them as "overly long, unnecessarily complex, often comically outdated and all too often, in its administration, pointlessly bureaucratic"...

Brandis has already signalled his reluctance to embrace Fair Use law due to the supposed uncertainty it would create for copyright holders. This of course conveniently ignores the fact that the United States – one of the world's major content creators – has had similar Fair Use laws in place for decades."