The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual
Property (The IP Commission) released its report earlier today, May 22,
2013. The IP Commission is an impressive
group of individuals led by Dennis C.
Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief
of the U.S. Pacific Command, and Jon M.
Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of
Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.
(I thought Huntsman was a very
credible candidate for President of the United States in the last U.S. presidential election cycle.) The other members include: Craig R. Barrett, former Chairman and
CEO of Intel Corporation; Slade Gorton,
former U.S. Senator from the state of Washington, Washington Attorney General,
and member of the 9-11 Commission; William
J. Lynn III, CEO of DRS Technologies and former Deputy Secretary of
Defense; Deborah Wince-Smith, President and CEO
of the Council on Competitiveness; Michael K. Young, President of the
University of Washington and former Deputy Under Secretary of State. (Notably, President Young was also the Dean of
George Washington University’s law school.)
I have included the recommendations of the IP Commission below. The recommendations that caught my immediate
attention involve the International Trade Commission, the Economic Espionage
Act, increasing the number of green cards available for high-tech workers and
expanding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s
jurisdiction. I’ve previously blogged on the issue
concerning IP theft and cybersecurity here.
Here is a Washington Post editorial about the report. The full report is here.
Recommendations
The Commission recommends short-term, medium-term, and
long-term remedies.
Short-term measures incorporate the immediate steps
that policymakers should take to stem the tide of IP theft and include the following:
Designate the national security advisor as the principal
policy coordinator for all actions on the protection of American IP. The theft
of American IP poses enormous challenges to national security and the welfare
of the nation. These challenges require the direct involvement of the
president’s principal advisor on national security issues to ensure that they
receive the proper priority and the full engagement of the U.S. government.
Provide statutory responsibility and authority to the
secretary of commerce to serve as the principal official to manage all aspects
of IP protection. The secretary of commerce has sufficient human, budgetary,
and investigative resources to address the full range of IP-protection issues.
If given the statutory authority to protect American IP, we anticipate a robust
set of responses.
Strengthen the International Trade Commission’s 337
process to sequester goods containing stolen IP. The current 337 process is not
fast enough to prevent goods containing or benefitting from stolen IP from
entering the United States. A speedier process, managed by a strong interagency
group led by the secretary of commerce, can both prevent counterfeit goods from
entering the United States and serve as a deterrent to future offenders. The
speedier process would impound imports suspected of containing or benefitting
from IP theft based on probable cause. A subsequent investigation would allow
the importing company to prove that the goods did not contain or benefit from
stolen IP.
Empower the secretary of the treasury, on the
recommendation of the secretary of commerce, to deny the use of the American
banking system to foreign companies that repeatedly use or benefit from the
theft of American IP. Access to the American market is a principal interest of
firms desiring to become global industrial leaders. Protecting American IP
should be a precondition for operating in the American market. Failure to do so
ought to result in sanctions on bank activities, essentially curtailing U.S.
operations.
Increase Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of
Investigation resources to investigate and prosecute cases of trade-secret
theft, especially those enabled by cyber means. The increase in trade-secret
theft, in many ways enabled by emerging cyber capabilities, requires a significant
increase in investigative and prosecutorial resources.
Consider the degree of protection afforded to American
companies’ IP a criterion for approving major foreign investments in the United
States under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) process. CFIUS
assesses national security risk and national security implications of proposed
transactions involving U.S. companies. Adding an additional evaluative
criterion to the review process that assesses the manner in which a foreign company
obtains IP would help improve IP-protection environments.
Enforce strict supply-chain accountability for the U.S.
government. Establishing control and auditing measures that enable suppliers to
the U.S. government to guarantee the strongest IP-protection standards should
be the “new normal” that the U.S. government demands.
Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to judge
whether companies’ use of stolen IP is a material condition that ought to be
publicly reported. Corporate leaders will take seriously the protection of IP,
including in their supply chains, if reporting IP theft in disclosure
statements and reports to boards of directors and shareholders is mandatory.
Greatly expand the number of green cards available to
foreign students who earn science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
degrees in American universities and who have a job offer in their field upon
graduation. In too many cases, American universities train the best minds of
foreign countries, who then return home with a great deal of IP knowledge and
use it to compete with American companies. Many of these graduates have job
offers and would gladly stay in the United States if afforded the opportunity.
Legislative and legal reforms represent actions that
aim to have positive effects over the medium-term. To build a more sustainable
legal framework to protect American IP, Congress and the administration should
take the following actions:
Amend the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) to provide a
federal private right of action for trade-secret theft. If companies or
individuals can sue for damages due to the theft of IP, especially trade
secrets, this will both punish bad behavior and deter future theft.
Make the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
the appellate court for all actions under the EEA. The CAFC is the appellate
court for all International Trade Commission cases and has accumulated the most
expertise of any appellate court on IP issues. It is thus in the best position
to serve as the appellate court for all matters under the EEA.
Instruct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to obtain
meaningful sanctions against foreign companies using stolen IP. Having
demonstrated that foreign companies have stolen IP, the FTC can take sanctions
against those companies.
Strengthen American diplomatic priorities in the
protection of American IP. American ambassadors ought to be assessed on
protecting intellectual property, as they are now assessed on promoting trade
and exports. Raising the rank of IP attachés in countries in which theft is the
most serious enhances their ability to protect American IP.
Over the longer term, the Commission recommends the
following capacity-building measures:
Build institutions in priority countries that contribute
toward a “rule of law” environment in ways that protect IP. Legal and
judicial exchanges, as well as training programs sponsored by elements of the
U.S. government—including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—will pay
long-term dividends in the protection of IP.
Develop a program that encourages technological innovation
to improve the ability to detect counterfeit goods. Prize competitions have
proved to be both meaningful and cost-effective ways to rapidly develop and
assess new technologies. New technologies, either to validate the integrity of
goods or to detect fraud, would both deter bad behavior and serve as models for
the creation of new IP.
Ensure that top U.S. officials from all agencies push to
move China, in particular, beyond a policy of indigenous innovation toward
becoming a self-innovating economy. China’s various industrial policies,
including indigenous innovation, serve to dampen the country’s own
technological advancements. Utility, or “petty,” patents are a particularly
pernicious form of Chinese IP behavior and need to cease being abused.
Develop IP “centers of excellence” on a regional basis
within China and other priority countries. This policy aims to show local
and provincial leaders that protecting IP can enhance inward foreign
investment; this policy both strengthens the protection of IP and benefits the
promotion possibilities of officials whose economic goals are achieved by
producing foreign investment.
Establish in the private, nonprofit sector an assessment
or rating system of levels of IP legal protection, beginning in China but extending
to other countries as well. One of the tools necessary to develop “centers
of excellence” is a rating system that shows the best—and worst—geographical
areas for the protection of IP.
The Commission recommends the following measures to
address cybersecurity:
Implement prudent vulnerability-mitigation measures. This
recommendation provides a summary of the security activities that ought to be
undertaken by companies. Activities such as network surveillance, sequestering
of critical information, and the use of redundant firewalls are proven and
effective vulnerability-mitigation measures.
Support American companies and technology that can both
identify and recover IP stolen through cyber means. Without damaging the
intruder’s own network, companies that experience cyber theft ought to be able
to retrieve their electronic files or prevent the exploitation of their stolen
information.
Reconcile necessary changes in the law with a changing
technical environment. Both technology and law must be developed to
implement a range of more aggressive measures that identify and penalize
illegal intruders into proprietary networks, but do not cause damage to third
parties. Only when the danger of hacking into a company’s network and
exfiltrating trade secrets exceeds the rewards will such theft be reduced from
a threat to a nuisance.
