From ＂Pirate＂ to ＂Defender＂ —— On the Internal Logic of American Safeguarding Hegemony by Protecting Intellectual Property Rights

　　Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, July 24th (International Observation) From "Pirates" to "Defenders" — — At the end, the inherent logic of the United States to safeguard hegemony under the pretext of protecting intellectual property rights

　　Xinhua News Agency reporter Su Liang

　　Encourage discovery and invention, protect innovation, and promote the application of science and technology — — This is the proper meaning of protecting intellectual property rights; Maximize economic and social benefits, improve the quality of human life, and promote global common development — — This is the ultimate goal of protecting intellectual property rights.

　　However, as a country with the first-Mover advantage in technology, the United States has long instrumentalized and politicized the protection of intellectual property rights, and often suppressed other countries with measures such as long-arm jurisdiction and high tariffs, in order to seek its own self-interest, consolidate its hegemony, and deter the development and progress of other countries, especially emerging countries.

　　From "cutting corners" in the early days to "bullying" now, the United States has changed from a "pirate" to a so-called "guardian", monopolizing in the name of protection, with the fundamental purpose of maximizing self-interest. Many experts pointed out that the intellectual property policy of the United States pursues pragmatism, protectionism and hegemonism, which goes against the original intention of the international intellectual property protection system.

　　Building the number one industrial power with "stolen property rights"

　　Intellectual property protection in the United States has a disgraceful past. The United States, which is now always pointing fingers at other countries, was once a hotbed of global intellectual property theft. Peter Andreas, a professor at the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University in the United States, said that the United States only became a "defender" of intellectual property protection after becoming a leading industrial power.

　　Samuel slater, who enjoys the reputation of "the father of the American industrial revolution", was once an apprentice of a British textile mill. He brought the advanced hydraulic spinning machine technology to the United States in violation of British law and was denounced as a "traitor" by his hometown people. Boston businessman Francis cabot Lowell stole power loom technology from a British factory and successfully "copied" it in the United States.

　　In the early days of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, American political elites not only refused to steal advanced European technology, but also openly advocated and supported it. Washington, the founding president of the United States, lavished praise on Thomas Digges, an American commercial spy who had been imprisoned in Britain for many times, saying that he was "not only friendly, but also full of enthusiasm". Washington also recommended British businessman Howell to set up a factory in Virginia, USA, specifically urging the governor not to disclose Howell’s name to avoid "getting into trouble" for the latter in Britain.

　　Hamilton, the first US Treasury Secretary, claimed in the far-reaching Report on Manufacturing that the export ban of advanced technology in European countries was "selfish" and "exclusive", and also said that people who brought "technical improvements and secrets with extraordinary value" to the United States should be encouraged.

　　Doreen Ben-Atal, a professor of history at Fordham University in the United States, lamented that the American industrial revolution was "born of stolen property rights".

　　Although the United States enacted a copyright law and set up a patent office a long time ago, it lacked the will and means to supervise the authenticity of the application, and only relied on individuals to "swear" and did not protect the rights of foreigners. Pat Choate, an American political economist, believes that the United States at that time was a "super refuge" for global industrial pirates to evade legal accountability.

　　The United States was once a big country of book piracy, and even libraries and bookstores were full of pirated books. Dickens, a great master of English literature in the 19th century, was once a victim of piracy in the United States. He and other well-known British writers jointly petitioned the United States Congress, hoping to stop piracy, but they did not get a serious response, and finally they had to give up.

　　In 1886, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was concluded to safeguard international copyright. Although the United States participated as an observer in the international conference that adopted the convention text, it was not good for the United States to participate in the convention because of the underdeveloped publishing industry in the United States, so the United States did not sign the convention. It was not until 1989, more than one hundred years later, that the United States finally joined the convention.

　　Promoting the maximization of American interests with "American standards"

　　One of the important tools for the United States to consolidate its economic first-Mover advantage and global hegemony is to push the "American standard" for intellectual property protection. The United States began to incorporate intellectual property protection into its hegemonic tool in the 1980s. At that time, Japan’s technology and economy developed rapidly and maintained a trade surplus with the United States for a long time, which made the United States feel a sense of crisis about its global competitiveness.

　　In 1985, the US President’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness emphasized in a report that in order to give full play to the advantages of the United States, intellectual property protection should be a priority on the policy agenda. Not only expand the scope of intellectual property protection in the United States, but also promote America’s trading partners — — Especially in newly industrialized countries — — Obey American rules.

　　That is to say, the essence of intellectual property protection in the United States is to maintain its dominant position in international trade. Therefore, the United States has included the so-called "protection of intellectual property rights" with "market access", "manipulation of exchange rate", "anti-dumping" and "countervailing" in the "toolbox" to safeguard its global hegemony. On the basis of Article 301 of the United States Trade Act of 1974, the Comprehensive Trade and Competition Act of 1988 established "Special Section 301" specifically for intellectual property issues. This provision stipulates that the US Trade Representative has the right to evaluate whether other countries fully protect US intellectual property rights and take retaliatory measures.

　　Experts say that the United States ostensibly aims to protect the legitimate interests of intellectual property owners, but because it has the power to define "legitimate interests", it is actually safeguarding its global economic hegemony by forcing other countries to abide by American laws and implement long-arm jurisdiction.

　　As soon as the relevant policies were introduced, the United States "started" Brazil, the largest economy in Latin America. In order to support the infringement allegations of American pharmaceutical interest groups, the United States imposed tariffs on some Brazilian products exported to the United States in the late 1980s, and prevented Brazil from appealing under the framework of GATT, forcing Brazil to amend its domestic laws to safeguard the interests of American enterprises.

　　In the Japan-US trade negotiations, Japan also had to make a commitment to protect the intellectual property rights of American enterprises. Some analysts pointed out that being forced to adopt the "American standard" is one of the important reasons for the decline of Japan’s economy.

　　The United States not only forces its trading partners to apply "American standards", but also tries to promote "American standards" for the protection of intellectual property rights in international mechanisms. The United States, together with developed countries, included the issue of intellectual property rights in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations and promoted the conclusion of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS adopts a "one-size-fits-all" model for intellectual property protection standards of countries with different levels of development, and its achievement is regarded as the internationalization of "Special Section 301" in the United States.

　　The United States promotes intellectual property protection in the international arena, not simply to maintain innovation or promote progress, but more to impose "American standards" on countries with different levels of development, transfer the benefits due to developing countries to developed countries, and promote the maximization of American interests.

　　Building technical barriers to deter the development of emerging countries

　　In today’s world, multi-polarization and globalization are developing in depth, and emerging markets and developing countries are rising in groups, which has become a universal aspiration to promote the development of the global intellectual property governance system in a more just and reasonable direction. In this context, the United States attempts to plan a "higher standard" and more exclusive intellectual property system to consolidate its monopoly position and deter the development of emerging and developing countries.

　　Ben Atal is the author of Trade Secrets: Knowledge Theft and the Origin of American Industrial Power. In his book, he pointed out that the logic of protecting intellectual property rights in the United States and other countries is hegemonism. In the past few decades, developed countries such as the United States have transferred industries with high pollution and high labor costs to developing countries, and their economic focus has focused on high-tech industries and services, so they have paid more attention to maintaining "knowledge capital."

　　The United States is not satisfied with the benefits brought by TRIPS, and even criticizes the provisions for ensuring underdeveloped countries to obtain medical technology and medicines as "loopholes in intellectual property protection" and seeks to establish a more stringent multilateral intellectual property mechanism.

　　After long-term closed-door negotiations, western countries led by the United States reached an agreement on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in 2011. The agreement improves the standards of intellectual property protection under TRIPS in many aspects, and once it comes into effect in the future, it will seriously infringe on the interests of developing countries under the transmission of international trade mechanism. In addition, the US-led "US-Mexico-Canada Agreement" (the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement) has also made a big fuss about intellectual property rights.

　　Taking long-arm jurisdiction and high tariffs are the unilateral measures used by the United States in the field of intellectual property. The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the United States Act of 2022, promulgated in January this year, once again expanded the scope and means of intellectual property protection and strengthened the optional sanctions.

　　In the field of intellectual property protection, the United States has set up obstacles for developing countries, the essence of which is to "lock" developing countries at the bottom of the global industrial chain and value chain. John barton, a late professor at Stanford University Law School in the United States, told the media before his death that putting an end to the imitation strategy of developing countries through intellectual property rules "will completely narrow their choice to realize economic take-off".

　　Under the guidance of this policy, American enterprises have long been accustomed to the "circle-knowing movement". Abuse of rules in various countries, extraordinary large number of patent applications, and even trademark applications for common words, have extended the definition of basic patents to conceptual principles and operating methods, resulting in unnecessary expansion of the concept of intellectual property rights and more complicated intellectual property disputes.

　　From "pirates" to so-called "guardians", the internal logic of the United States has never changed. Stealing textile technology is to seek commercial interests and develop the domestic economy; The use of intellectual property rules to restrict the use of advanced technology by emerging countries and developing countries is also to serve the interests of the United States, maintain the first-Mover advantage and maintain global hegemony. The relevant practices of the United States distort the original intention of protecting intellectual property rights, which is not only not conducive to promoting innovation and progress, but also creates obstacles to global innovation and development. Hegemonism in the name of protecting intellectual property rights fully exposes the hypocritical nature of American "guardians."