China’s Embrace Of An Intellectual Property System Imposed On It By The United States

For. The real news I'm, Lynn fries in Geneva. 2017. Was a record year for international. Patent filings at the World Intellectual, Property Organization. Country. Rankings, his origin, or source of, those applications, is a closely, watched statistic. With, a question, being who, filed the most applications. Results. Showed China, moved into second, position as a source of international patent, applications, filed via, WIPO in 2017. Closing. In on longtime. Leader the United States. Among. The top 15 performing, countries, only China, posted. Double-digit growth, in 2017. And since, 2003. China's. Growth, rates of international. Patent applications. Have exceeded, 10 percent every, year so. What do these statistics, on China tell us the. World Intellectual, Property Organization. Runs three international, filing, systems, used. By all major corporations. Of the world most, notably. Multinational. Corporations, racing, to expand, vast. Intellectual. Property portfolios. Why. Post press conference, on 2017. Results, made, clear, that, it's the system for patents, that gets the most attention, that's. Because it's technology, and a, very good indicator, of the relative, strength in the fields of technology, of, the various countries, of the world so. Explained, why posed director-general, Francis. Gurry here's. A clip from that press conference I, mean the articulated. Expressed, strategy. Of the. Chinese leadership, is. To. Go. From, made. In China to created in China so, if you like in you, know very simplistic. Terms to go. From being the factory of the world to the laboratory, of the world, what. We have seen is, I think an, extremely, strategic, approach. Adopted, by China. Which. Is coming from the, top of the. Leadership, of China an, emphasis, on innovation, by. President. Xi Jingping. And. By. Prime Minister Lee kichan and, the, rest of the state leadership. And. A. Number, of careful, policies, put in place, in. Order to develop technology. Logical, capacity, of China. Covering. Fields. Such, as artificial. Intelligence, advanced, manufacturing. And. So, on so, this, I think is, the reality of what we've seen in the course of the last 20 years and, the, reality is that a new, competitor, has arrived. And. And. It's. A, very. Strong. Competitor. As the, figures, would show. Joining. Us to discuss this, and related issues is Peter draw hose we. Last spoke with professor, draw host from his office at the Australian, National University. Today. Peter draw host joins us from Italy where. He's a professor, of law and governance, at the European, University, Institute. Welcome. Peter. You're. An eminent, figure in the world of intellectual. Properties, so I wanted to get your take on these IP stats. What. Do you think do you think they are a good indicator, that China has, arrived as a major technological, competitor. I think. That's the right reading. Of the statistics. Of. Course patent. Statistics. Are only, one measure, of innovation but, they they. Do show, that, China. Is placing, a huge emphasis on. Developing. In certain areas, in the electricity. Area, in the digital. Communications. Area the computer, area. Along. With chemicals, and at the same time they're, trying to get the commercial. Benefits. Of. This, drive to developers, as, a scientific. Power. And. It's been a, story, of remarkable, progress. If. We think. Back. To the fact that China, really only began to shift. Towards. A market economy. In, the early 1980s. So, in your view China, has learned to play the IP game, yes. That's that's, exactly correct it's, become, very, adept, it's a fast learner. We, see this in, monumental. Patent. Filings of, in applications. Now well. Over a million, we. See astonishing trademark. Numbers, the, US has accused China of intellectual. Property theft, comment. On that in the, broader. Context. Of this shift, by, China to, a market economy. Problem. For China is that it. Has been a factory for the world but this has come at. A great environmental. Cost, so. It wants a different kind, of economy an. Economy in, which it catches, more, value. From. The things that it makes but, it would also like to make things that are less. Less. Polluting, so, called knowledge, economy things.

More. Software, more, high. Technology, products. So. The. Desire, of all countries, to, capture. More, wealth at lower. Environmental, cost. Is. Is, a, goal that they, all share now. Us. Accusations. Against. China. When it comes to, intellectual. Property infringement. Of. Course had some basis. In fact. Any. Country, that seeks, to improve. This, innovation. System will look at innovation. Leaders, and the, United States is an hour the an innovation. Leader and so. China. Looks at, what. U.s.. Science does what US companies, does that seeks to learn from that but. At the same time China. Has also, made, great strides in. Improving, its, own intellectual, property, system I think we should give China. A lot of credit, for. First. Of all enacting, intellectual, property standards that, in many ways were pushed upon, it. Before. It would have liked to have adopted those standards, I mean. China as a, poor country was, not really, ready to embrace. Intellectual. Property at, the point, that. The US was insisting, that. It do so but, China basically, complied, with us. Demands, it, enacted. Standards, that are combined with the World Trade Organization agreement. The troops, related, agreement on intellectual, property rights. And. So. As. I said I think some credit. Should be given to, China for, having. Enacted, those standards, and for trying to get better compliance, and, of course if, you want to build an, economy. On the. Basis of innovation. Then. To some extent you have to have an. Intellectual property system. That. People use. And, play, by its rules, otherwise. You really, won't. Get or, won't catch of those value chains that, bring. New wealth what. Are your thoughts on the US tariffs, imposed against. China by the Trump administration, and. China's. Retaliatory. Tariffs. And claim. Filed. Against, the United, States of the WTO. Yes. I. Think, most. Observers, would say. Really. I mean the United States if we think about this historically. And. Had. The most leverage, over. China when, China was first, of all seeking, acts, to the US market as an exporter. And, so it wanted. The. United States to grant at most favored, nation status, so obviously, that gave the United States a, great deal, of bargaining power and secondly. The. United States had a lot of leverage over, China because China wanted. To become a member of the GATT the general agreement, on trade and tariffs or what, then, became, or. Evolved. Into the World Trade Organization, so. Those two things, most. Favored nation and. Membership. Of the World Trade Organization, gave. The United States a great deal of bargaining, power, but. Actually. Even in, the early 1990s. When, the United, States really, began to threaten. China. With. Trade. Retaliation. The. Autonomy. Is responded. With, some counter, retaliation. I mean they began to list, certain. Goods. That US. Companies were exporting, into China and ultimately, in the early 1990s. What we saw was that the United States and China reached, an accommodation they, came up with some memoranda, of understanding. Everyone. More or less said they had got, a good deal, and. That was that now. I would, be very surprised, if something similar, here didn't happen given, the fact that. China. Now is the world's second-biggest, economy. At. Some point it's going to choke past the United States have become the, world's, biggest economy, and the. Idea, that. China, will roll, over or. Count how to, the United States on something. So public, and that is so central, to its, own image, of itself I think. Is very very implausible, which. Implies that although trade, threats may have been effective, for the u.s. in the past those. Days are gone. Look. I think that certainly Robert, the. United States simply cannot, push. China. In, way that it was able to in, the 1980s. In particular and. In the 1990s. Its. Relative. Power over, China has, declined. And. If. You have a look at the import, and export, relationships. Between, China. And the United States as well as the broader. Global. Agendas. Whether one is talking about. Climate. Change or, world. Security. Their. Interests, are so intertwined, that. An all. Our trade, wall. That. Would ruin relationships with. Them seems. A, terrible, option, and I think many interest, groups in the United States would not support. Such. Such. A blitzkrieg. Approach. To. Handling. China I don't think many interest groups in the United States. Particularly. Is if. This was to escalate, would, ultimately Lobby. The United States Trade Representative. Would Lobby. The president and would really ask. For common-sense to prevail because there are just too many interests.

That Would be adversely, affected by, a, deep, and scarring trade war whatever. Other than a lose-lose, trade, war common. Sense were to prevail what, would it look like well. I think, probably. China. Would agree, to, do, a bit more on, compliance. With. Intellectual, property standards. The. United States would. Offer some more capacity-building, I mean already there, are lots. Of initiatives between. The United. States and. China, when it comes to capacity, building in intellectual, property many, US. Experts, travel, to China and offer their views and offer assistance there's. Close cooperation between. The. Chinese Patent, Office and the United, States. Patent. Office so. I think in a technical, level of a technocratic, level, we see lots of cooperation. And. Eventually. The dust settles, and. You, know people stop. Threatening. Billions, of dollars of tariffs, what, we would probably, see is some sort of agreement to do more. In the intellectual property, area. China. Might well offer. A little bit more on. Market, access a little bit more. Transparency. It's. That sort of thing I think that we would see if, common, sense would prevail, what. I hear from what we're saying is the world's two, biggest economies. Need to cooperate, rather. Than wasting time and resources and, a lose-lose, trade war. Well. Absolutely I think the trade war will, get, us nowhere, I mean I think all, that will happen will, be that we'll see. Markets. Frightened. We'll. See, a. Lot, of a. Lot. Of, saw. A, lot, of interest groups lose on both sides I mean US farmers will obviously be affected, and ultimately, u.s., high technology. Companies. Single. Goods, in. China, will, also end, up losing. Obviously. China. Means companies that are seeking to export into the US market will, lose so there'll be a bunch of losers, a very long list of losers. So. That no. One's going to win from this I think. The more important, issues. The. Issues that we, see. Being. That. We're alerted, to by scientists. I mean we are in a, serious. Ecological. And, climate, situation we've, had warnings, now for decades, of. Degenerating. Ecosystems. All. Around the world we're. Seeing, climate. Related problems, declining. Outputs. Agricultural. Outputs in some countries, for, example in, South Asia because, of. Problems. With the monsoon, of, problems. With heat and so on and. So what we really need are the world's to the scientific, powers, and I would say that by now China, is probably the world's second, largest scientific. Power, we. Really, need cooperation. On what. A major. Global. Problems. And will become major global. Catastrophes. So. The last thing we want is a trade war and war imperatively. We want countries, cooperating. On science, we want countries, sharing knowledge about how to address problems whether, their health. Problems, pandemics. Epidemics. Or. Whether their climate. Problems. Whether their ecological the, test refers the consequences, of drought there's, a long list of things that we need to talk about as.

A Global, collective, and. That's what China, and the United States really, need to be talking about and. Under, the current IP regime. Is is that plausible. Well. That's a good question my. Own view is that China's. Embrace, of, intellectual. Property rights, is, to some, extent a mistake, because it it. Creates, almost, an. Arm's mentality. A kind, of arms race in which the game mainly. Is getting. Scientists. To apply. For as many patent, applications, as you possibly. Can and if. You think about it for a moment the. Intellectual. Property, based innovation. System, that we had is, really a failure I mean. Think. About the, price of medical, drugs for example the price of pharmaceuticals. I mean we now have pharmaceuticals. In the United States cancer, treatments, that are approaching, half a million dollars I mean, that's unsustainable, for. American, citizens, and it's, certainly, unsustainable. For, poor people and it's unsustainable. For Chinese citizens, likewise. Think of the, price of textbooks or, think, of the fact that so, much knowledge, is, hidden, behind, copyright. Paywalls. And the way in which publishing, cartels, block. Citizens, from getting. Access to knowledge that their tax, dollars hope and, paid for, so, it's. Really an absurd, system. It's an irrational system. So. The idea, that that, China is embracing, this system, a system that in a sense the United States imposed, on it I think is a, grave, error, and. We're all going to suffer for it what I mean is that global. Citizens, everywhere. Are, going to pay the. Consequences, of this you know we need knowledge, that's produced, with public, tax dollars to be freely, available you. Know you and I should be able to get. The knowledge that we want by. Visiting. The website and. Downloading. What we want we shouldn't, have to pay thirty or forty dollars for a scientific, article, if we're interested, in that scientific, article that's simply, absurd we. Shouldn't, have to worry about. Cancer. Treatments, that are going to cost us hundreds, of thousands, of dollars that may send us into bankruptcy and, that's, the kind of thing that the patent system is deliver for us so, I think both, countries need. To rethink, this, agenda and certainly, if China, cares. About. Equality it. Cares, about. Inequality. About doing something about inequality. It. Should be addressing these issues and, it should be showing more leadership on these issues. What. About the careful. Planning and extremely. Strategic approach, on the, part of Chinese leadership. In. Achieving, their goals in. The top fields, of technology, well. We heard, WIPO. Press. Conference, in the words of Francis. Gurry, the plan is to for. China to go from being factory. Of the world to, laboratory. Of the world, China. Is already gene-editing. Human, and with. An online population greater. The entire, population. Of the United States it's. Making, rapid advances, in artificial, intelligence, we. See the former top deputy. Helping. Lead. Artificial. Intelligence strategy at Microsoft. Is. Now in Beijing, and Baidu, a premier, a I company. In China the conventional, wisdom being to train the algorithms. That, will deliver intelligence. You, need data I'm, in the company with the most data wins, give. Us some perspective on all this. The. United States should, be thinking, about the. Longer-term picture, here it is undoubtedly true that a country, that has access to, hundreds.

Of Millions of citizens. Can. In effect conduct. The. Largest, scale experiments. In scientific, history so, if we think of the Chinese population. All, those that are on the internet as an experimental, population, so. Let's say that that's roughly, a billion people. Then. Essentially, that. Source, of big data will, allow a. Chinese, scientists. To develop, learning. Algorithms. At a rate, and at, a scale, that is historically, unprecedented. Now. The problem is this. That. When. You run scientific, experiments. At a university. You need, clearance, from the universe of the ethics committee I mean that's fundamental, that's that's, a fundamental. Prerequisite. That informed, consent but. Actually what we see happening in the world is that many experiments. Are taking place on citizens, without their informed, consent and. Actually. What we're also seeing, is really. Manipulation. Of. Citizens, preferences, using, big data and using. Highly, forensically, targeted, algorithms. Now. As, I. Say China, has a comparative. Advantage in, the sense that it has a very large population upon. Which to experiment. Now. My, own view is that this is ethically. Highly. Questionable. And. There are many issues. About. Whether. We as citizens, want. To be experimented. Upon now, of course, you. Know whether the Chinese government, will, be consulting, as citizens, whether the Chinese, government, will be protecting. The interests of NEADS citizens. When it comes to this kind of experimentation. Is, an open question. But. I again, think we need some. Leadership, on. These issues I, think we need a. Discussion. Of what. Sort of collective, approach we would like and. I think citizens, everywhere it would like some. More discussion of this I don't. Think it's it's, in the long-term interests. Of the. United, States. To. Enter. A sort of arms race in, this area. Because. I think that's going to produce a. Frightening. Kind, of dystopian, world we, have a lot of choices about the future that we can create and. Unfortunately. I, think, intellectual. Property the, privatization. Of science, and arms. Race mentality, when it comes to the use of science, it's. Going to produce the sort of sci-fi future. None. Of us really want a kind of dark dystopian, we, could have a very, different one of course, the. Obama administration. In promoting, the trans-pacific, partnership. Argued.

That It was of strategic, importance. For the u.s. to, join the TPP to. Contain China. Now. That the Trump, administration may, well do a u-turn, in that direction. What's. Your, assessment, of the merits of that argument. China, has many options it, doesn't really have, to, worry. About, the TPP, all that, much, I mean it's launched, its own bills and Road initiative, and. Initiative. Of this looking. At integrating. The economies, of you. Know 50 or 60 countries, looking. At the way in which. City. Economies, and China can be integrated with, the city economies, of Central, Asia and ultimately, Europe. I mean, this is a big, and bold vision one. That doesn't rely on trade agreements. So. I do think, that. Engendering. Some, sort of. Competitive. Arms. Race mentality, is, a mistake. One. Should be reaching, out to China. Seeking. To. Cooperate. On, issues. Like, the. Future of big data and AI. And thinking. About the. Kinds of ethical guidelines. That we need in this area the kinds of protocols, that we need in this area that would safeguard citizens. Interests, I mean I think it's very important. That, scientists. In China that scientists, in the United States and scientists. In. Europe as well as. Citizens. Groups and, so on all become part of this large conversation. About where we want to take these. Technologies. Turning. This into just trade talk and. Competition. Is. A mistake, and I also think that if the United States thinks, that it's going to somehow discipline. China when these with this kind of talk and these contra tactics, it's. Really a mistaken, view, of the world, to. Wrap up in a closing comment, talk, about the concentration, of ownership of, intellectual, property rights in the hands of so few multinational. Corporations, whether, they're US or Chinese, corporations, and, what. That means for inequality, not. Only between countries. But within countries. Well. This is a complex. Economic, question of course I mean the relationship. Between intellectual. Property, and inequality. And it's it's really an area that's been under. Explored, but in a nutshell let, me say this. Intellectual. Property is a winner-take-all. System, so, if you have the patents, over. The. Latest artificial, intelligence, technologies. Or you, own, key. Trademarks. You. Basically. Are in a position to license. Or to control, the development of, a particular of a, particular technology, and capture, all the wealth from. Their technology. So. What that essentially means is, that the winner takes, all and you get a longtail, of people. Who are. Excluded. If. Anyone competition. If you competitive, markets, you would reduce the role of intellectual, property it is essentially what that means is then that lots of players come in and you get marginal, cost pricing. So. My. Own view is their intellectual, property.

Fundamentally. Contributes. To, inequality. And that's, both within countries, because large corporations. Unless, huge, amounts, of wealth over, which I might add they pay virtually no taxes. As has become clear in the United States and Europe and in Australia many. Other countries they, amass. Large patent. Portfolios. That bring them large amounts, of wealth this. Wealth being held in tax havens and which. Do. Very, little for equality, right. Essentially, they're in a position to. Buy. Out their competitors. Making. Competition. In the marketplace very. Difficult, so what we're going to see ultimately, I, think. Rising. Gini. Coefficients. Rising. Inequality. So, I think we need to have a conversation about, the relationship, between intellectual. Property and inequality. And. The way you see it this, is related, to issues of representation. Democracy. Well. Of course I, mean, if. You create large concentrations. Of wealth um in its standard interest group theory you create, extraordinarily. Powerful. Lobbies. So. In. Authoritarian. States. These. Large. Lobbies, become, part. Of the elite in. Democracies. You in a way. Create. Interest. Groups that. Make. The. Workings of democracy, very difficult, because it's these interest, groups that can, essentially. Afford, campaign, contributions. That. Control, the media in various ways or influence, the media so. High. Levels of inequality. You. Know are a fundamental, problem for a democracy there's very, little doubt, we'll disagreement. We. Have to leave it there Peter. Draw hose thank you. Thank. You very much, and. Thank. You for joining us on the real news network. You.

2018-05-01 12:44

Other news