{"title":"The United States Response to Emerging Technological Powers","authors":"Frederick M. Abbott","doi":"10.4337/9781783471256.00037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the past 10 to 15 years the world economy has been transformed by rapid development in a number of the larger developing countries, such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. This transformation in some developing countries has brought with it profound changes. Increasing technical capacity in the emerging economy countries has placed pressure on wages in developed countries and hastened their shift from goods-based to service-based economies. Competition for natural resources has become more intense as demand for them has risen. Financial markets have become increasingly interconnected, seemingly heightening risks. It is generally a time of stress in the global economy.<br><br>In such an environment, it is not surprising that national governments are inclined to pursue “protective” or defensive technology agendas. Technology is perceived as an “asset”. That asset is protected in two basic ways: (1) by physical and technical defenses, such as plant security guards and anti- cyber- attack software; and (2) by intellectual property legal barriers, such as patents. <br><br>Over the coming decade it seems doubtful that the main preoccupation of IP policymakers in the United States will be over technology leakage to Chinese, Indian or Brazilian enterprises. Rather the concern will likely be how US companies can maintain competitive advantage in the technology arena. <br><br>Predictably, there will be two tracks of effort to maintain US competitive advantage in high technology products. The first will be “offensive” in terms of investing in innovation. Here the possibilities have been fairly well defined.<br><br>In defensive terms, can and should patents be used as a means to deter Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and other emerging market enterprises from increasingly penetrating the lucrative US consumer market, or other foreign markets? In the late 1980s, US companies turned to Section 337 of the Trade Act of 1930 in efforts to forestall Japanese high-tech entry into the US market. Those efforts may have borne some fruit at the margins, but did little to affect the overall balance of trade. What they mainly did was to instruct Japanese companies regarding how to “game” the US economic system, resulting in quite sophisticated IP strategies followed by Japanese companies.Today, at least in theory, US- based enterprises can limit import penetration of high technology products based on patents because US-based enterprises (and European and Japanese enterprises) are the preponderant owners of US patents.<br><br>Chinese enterprises have increased their patent filings in the United States, but not yet in very large numbers. However, it seems likely this will change as a reflection of the rapid increase in patenting within China, and use of the Patent Cooperation Treaty system. This raises the possibility that during the course of the next decade Chinese enterprises will begin to pursue infringement claims against companies based in the United States and against imports from rivals from other countries (and their own).<br><br>How will the United States react? Will China be just another Japan doing business in the United States? Or, will Chinese enterprises be portrayed by policymakers as a threat to US economic and/or national security interests? Part of the answer will depend on the extent to which China successfully transitions away from government ownership and/or control of industry. If US policymakers perceive Chinese inroads into the US market as part of a government program, the reaction is more likely to be hostile. If Chinese enterprises are legitimately private sector, this would seem to present less of a target for hostility because it would not be perceived as bolstering a foreign government with potential to affect national security interests.<br>","PeriodicalId":186347,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation Systems (Topic)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRPN: Innovation Systems (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471256.00037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over the past 10 to 15 years the world economy has been transformed by rapid development in a number of the larger developing countries, such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa. This transformation in some developing countries has brought with it profound changes. Increasing technical capacity in the emerging economy countries has placed pressure on wages in developed countries and hastened their shift from goods-based to service-based economies. Competition for natural resources has become more intense as demand for them has risen. Financial markets have become increasingly interconnected, seemingly heightening risks. It is generally a time of stress in the global economy.
In such an environment, it is not surprising that national governments are inclined to pursue “protective” or defensive technology agendas. Technology is perceived as an “asset”. That asset is protected in two basic ways: (1) by physical and technical defenses, such as plant security guards and anti- cyber- attack software; and (2) by intellectual property legal barriers, such as patents.
Over the coming decade it seems doubtful that the main preoccupation of IP policymakers in the United States will be over technology leakage to Chinese, Indian or Brazilian enterprises. Rather the concern will likely be how US companies can maintain competitive advantage in the technology arena.
Predictably, there will be two tracks of effort to maintain US competitive advantage in high technology products. The first will be “offensive” in terms of investing in innovation. Here the possibilities have been fairly well defined.
In defensive terms, can and should patents be used as a means to deter Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and other emerging market enterprises from increasingly penetrating the lucrative US consumer market, or other foreign markets? In the late 1980s, US companies turned to Section 337 of the Trade Act of 1930 in efforts to forestall Japanese high-tech entry into the US market. Those efforts may have borne some fruit at the margins, but did little to affect the overall balance of trade. What they mainly did was to instruct Japanese companies regarding how to “game” the US economic system, resulting in quite sophisticated IP strategies followed by Japanese companies.Today, at least in theory, US- based enterprises can limit import penetration of high technology products based on patents because US-based enterprises (and European and Japanese enterprises) are the preponderant owners of US patents.
Chinese enterprises have increased their patent filings in the United States, but not yet in very large numbers. However, it seems likely this will change as a reflection of the rapid increase in patenting within China, and use of the Patent Cooperation Treaty system. This raises the possibility that during the course of the next decade Chinese enterprises will begin to pursue infringement claims against companies based in the United States and against imports from rivals from other countries (and their own).
How will the United States react? Will China be just another Japan doing business in the United States? Or, will Chinese enterprises be portrayed by policymakers as a threat to US economic and/or national security interests? Part of the answer will depend on the extent to which China successfully transitions away from government ownership and/or control of industry. If US policymakers perceive Chinese inroads into the US market as part of a government program, the reaction is more likely to be hostile. If Chinese enterprises are legitimately private sector, this would seem to present less of a target for hostility because it would not be perceived as bolstering a foreign government with potential to affect national security interests.
在过去的10到15年里,一些较大的发展中国家,如巴西、中国、印度、印度尼西亚和南非的快速发展改变了世界经济。一些发展中国家的这种转变带来了深刻的变化。新兴经济国家技术能力的提高对发达国家的工资造成了压力,并加速了它们从以商品为基础的经济向以服务为基础的经济的转变。随着对自然资源需求的增加,对自然资源的竞争变得更加激烈。金融市场之间的联系日益紧密,这似乎加大了风险。这通常是全球经济面临压力的时期。在这样的环境下,各国政府倾向于追求“保护性”或防御性技术议程并不奇怪。技术被视为一种“资产”。该资产受到两种基本方式的保护:(1)通过物理和技术防御,例如工厂安全警卫和反网络攻击软件;(2)受知识产权法律障碍,如专利。在未来十年里,美国知识产权政策制定者的主要关注点是否会是向中国、印度或巴西企业泄露技术,这似乎值得怀疑。相反,人们担心的可能是美国企业如何在科技领域保持竞争优势。可以预见的是,为了保持美国在高科技产品方面的竞争优势,美国将采取两种努力。在投资创新方面,前者将是“进攻性的”。这里的可能性已经相当明确了。从防御的角度来看,专利能否也应该被用作一种手段,阻止中国、印度、巴西和其他新兴市场企业日益渗透利润丰厚的美国消费者市场或其他外国市场?上世纪80年代末,美国企业求助于《1930年贸易法》(Trade Act of 1930)第337条,试图阻止日本高科技产品进入美国市场。这些努力可能在一定程度上取得了一些成果,但对整体贸易平衡影响甚微。他们所做的主要是指导日本公司如何“游戏”美国经济体系,从而导致日本公司遵循相当复杂的知识产权战略。如今,至少在理论上,总部位于美国的企业可以限制基于专利的高科技产品的进口渗透,因为总部位于美国的企业(以及欧洲和日本的企业)是美国专利的主要所有者。中国企业在美国的专利申请量有所增加,但数量还不是很大。然而,随着中国国内专利申请的迅速增加以及《专利合作条约》系统的使用,这种情况似乎可能会发生变化。这就增加了一种可能性,即在未来十年中,中国企业将开始对总部设在美国的公司以及从其他国家(和自己国家)的竞争对手那里进口的产品提起侵权诉讼。美国将作何反应?中国会成为另一个在美国做生意的日本吗?或者,中国企业会被政策制定者描绘成对美国经济和/或国家安全利益的威胁吗?部分答案将取决于中国在多大程度上成功地从政府所有制和/或工业控制转型。如果美国政策制定者认为中国进入美国市场是政府计划的一部分,那么反应更有可能是敌意的。如果中国企业是合法的私营企业,这似乎不会成为敌意的目标,因为它不会被视为支持有可能影响国家安全利益的外国政府。