Ambasador's IPR Roundtable

Katie outside the IPR roundtable

Today we attended U.S. Ambasador Clark T. Randt's 6th Annual Roundtable Discussion on Intellectual Property Rights in China. The event was essentially a way for representatives from U.S. companies operating in China to voice their concerns to the U.S. Embassy, in the hopes that the embassy could lobby the Chinese government for legal reform. Hour after hour, speaker after speaker, we got to hear attorneys and policy lobbyists stand up and state their case to the embassy in the hopes of some action.

Because the speeches were off the record, however, I can only summarize. The primary concerns were as follows:

• Rule of Law
• Insufficient enforcement of existing IP statutes due to lack of political will and insufficient resources
• Local protectionism
• Lack of government transparency
• Lack of enforcement metrics
• The role of administrative agencies in Chinese enforcement regimes
• The AML and the "three Cs": whether China's Anti-Monopoly Law will protect competitors, competition, or China.
• The chilling effect of the US filing a case against China in the WTO, with regards to cooperation on intellectual property reforms. (Chinese coverage available here)
  

There were some very interesting discussions concerning counterfeit agricultural and pharmaceutical products, in particular China's role as a source for active fertilizer ingredients that are shipped to other jurisdictions, packaged in legitimate-looking containers, and exported to other jurisdictions. One speaker also spoke about how some seed companies refuse to export specific varieties of seeds to China because of a lack of patent protection for agricultural inventions under Chinese patent law.

What was most interesting about the day, however, was the absence of think-tanks and consumer advocacy groups. Any time a new IP law or policy crops up in Washington, the experts from Creative Commons, EFF, and Public Knowledge crank up the volume. Here, however, not one speaker represented the consumer side to U.S. foreign policy officials. Instead, it was all about the need to reform Chinese law to reflect American and European IP policy.

There were some interesting and funny stories. For instance, we heard about a supposed "piracy free zone" that has been established in Beijing's Chaoyang District. (I can assure you that piracy is alive and well in Chaoyang) One speaker discussed efforts to eliminate the sale of counterfeit brands at Beijing's notorious Silk Market, which is a mainstay of the local tourist economy and a fantastic source of fake Northface jackets for visiting brand-conscious Americans. We also heard about how manufacturers of counterfeit products have adapted to Chinese law and enforcement regimes by moving out of the main cities and into outlying provinces where they can produce the goods without interference from the central government. (They've even stopped shipping by rail and switched to trucks, which are more difficult to track) Perhaps most interesting story concerned how counterfeiters exploit the lack of customs enforcement in China's special free trade zones to avoid detection by the public security bureau.

What was most surprising, however, was the level of consensus among the participants with regards to the need for increased criminal penalties under Chinese law. I wonder how consumers back home would feel if they knew that some of their more prized brands were advocating for increased criminal punishments by the Chinese government for intellectual property crimes.