I don't think you understand how IP works. You think that in a national security sense, our IP laws keep our economy ahead of other countries? What, they're bound by those laws?
They are if the cited trade agreements go through. That's the whole point of these agreements.
Indeed, it may be you who doesn't understand how IP works. When rights holders try to get IP rules tied up in international trade agreements it's because they want to make it that much harder for signatory nations to modify IP law.
This is an important line of defense in cases where the rules are protecting companies that are widely seen as abusive (e.g. Monsanto), since nations that turn against them not only have to pass new legislation, they also have to disengage from international treaties. That extra layer of complication can add years of profitability to highly unpopular schemes.
I shouldn't have said "You don't know how IP works", because that's rude and it's beside the point. I'm more talking about international law in general. The law that states that the US cannot invade Iraq and that Syria cannot possess chemical weapons.
It's nighttime in China right now, but yesterday afternoon and tomorrow morning there are people working on duplicating every bit of protected American IP that they think is worth it.
Betting future economic security on other countries following the letter of the law against their own interest.. I just wouldn't call it wise. I mean, the UN's been telling the Israelis and the rest of the middle east that shooting at each other is against the law for decades now.
Oh I couldn't agree with you more on this point. India's treatment of pharmaceutical patents is a sterling example of a one-sided deal being given all the respect it deserves.
