This report was published on behalf of The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property by The National Bureau of Asian Research. Published May 2013. © 2013 by e National Bureau of Asian Research. Printed in the United States of America. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments iii Dennis C. Blair and Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. 1 Executive Summary Chapter 1 9 e Nature of the Problem Chapter 2 23 Measuring the Scale and Scope of the Loss of Intellectual Property Chapter 3 31 Types of IP e Chapter 4 33 Patent Violations Chapter 5 39 Trade-Secret e Chapter 6 47 Trademark Violations Chapter 7 51 Copyright Infringement Chapter 8 55 U.S. Government Responses Chapter 9 59 Developments in China Chapter 10 63 Short-term Solutions: Agile Administration Executive Action Chapter 11 73 Medium-term Solutions: Legislative and Legal Reform Chapter 12 77 Long-term Solutions: Capacity-building Chapter 13 79 Cyber Solutions Chapter 14 83 Potential Future Measures 85 About the Commissioners 89 List of Common Abbreviations ii THE IP COMMISSION REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We present this report to the American people for their consideration. e Commission on the e of American Intellectual Property reached consensus on its insights and recommendations aer a thorough and independent investigation of one of the most pressing issues of economic and national security facing our country. We investigated the scale and complexities of international intellectual property (IP) the, the driving forces behind it, and its consequences for Americans. We collected the evidence, formed assessments, and developed a set of policy recommendations for Congress and the Administration. is Commission is composed of extraordinary members. We are indebted to our fellow Commissioners for their contributions. ey have brought to the Commission diligence, seless bipartisanship, and tremendous expertise and wisdom. Coming from industry, defense, advanced education, and politics, and with senior-level diplomatic, national security, legal, and other public policy experience, they span the spectrum of American professional life that has huge stakes in IP rights. ey have our deepest appreciation. e Commission reached out to many remarkable specialists and leaders who shared their experiences and perspectives as we developed an understanding of the problem and a very rich set of policy recommendations. Business leaders with whom we spoke provided inputs anonymously; they represent a cross-section of companies that deal with the problem of IP the, as well as trade associations with major interests in the problem and its solutions. Other interlocutors were ocials from Republican and Democratic administrations, policy analysts, lawyers, economists, international trade experts, and international relations and area specialists. We beneted from the eorts of those in the U.S. government who have been working hard on these issues for years. We thank them for their work and hope that our shining the spotlight on the facts and recommending strong policy make their goals more achievable. e Commission’s sta was exemplary. It includes Director Richard Ellings, Deputy Director Roy Kamphausen, Casey Bruner, John Graham, Creigh Agnew, Meredith Miller, Clara Gillispie, Sonia Luthra, Amanda Keverkamp, Deborah Cooper, Karolos Karnikis, Joshua Ziemkowski, and Jonathan Walton. e Commission is grateful to e National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) and its Slade Gorton International Policy Center, which provided the unrestricted support that underwrote the Commission’s work and complete independence. Leading an eort that attempts to dene and prescribe a focus as complex as IP protection is truly daunting. Given the subject of this report, it comes as no surprise that the People’s Republic of China gures prominently throughout. It should be noted that we co-chairs have spent a considerable part of our professional lives building and managing important aspects of the U.S.-China relationship. We have participated in and observed the development—whether diplomatic, military, economic, or cultural—of the most critical bilateral relationship of the 21st century, one that will have a signicant impact on the security and prosperity of the entire world. Ensuring its viability and success in part gave rise to this Commission and our participation in it. We recognize as well the historic reform eorts that continue to be undertaken in China and oer this report as a step toward solutions and pragmatic problem solving that have characterized the interaction of both countries for over four decades. Dennis C. Blair Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. Co-chair Co-chair iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY e Commission on the e of American Intellectual Property is an independent and bipartisan initiative of leading Americans from the private sector, public service in national security and foreign aairs, academe, and politics. e members are: • Dennis C. Blair (co-chair), former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacic Command • Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. (co-chair), former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative • 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 e three purposes of the Commission are to: 1. Document and assess the causes, scale, and other major dimensions of international intellectual property the as they aect the United States 2. Document and assess the role of China in international intellectual property the 3. Propose appropriate U.S. policy responses that would mitigate ongoing and future damage and obtain greater enforcement of intellectual property rights by China and other infringers Introduction e scale of international the of American intellectual property (IP) is unprecedented—hundreds of billions of dollars per year, on the order of the size of U.S. exports to Asia. e eects of this the are twofold. e rst is the tremendous loss of revenue and reward for those who made the inventions or who have purchased licenses to provide goods and services based on them, as well as of the jobs associated with those losses. American companies of all sizes are victimized. e second and even more pernicious eect is that illegal the of intellectual property is undermining both the means and the incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate, which will slow the development of new inventions and industries that can further expand the world economy and continue to raise the prosperity and quality of life for everyone. Unless current trends are reversed, there is a risk of stiing innovation, with adverse consequences for both developed and still developing countries. e American response to date of hectoring governments and prosecuting individuals has been utterly inadequate to deal with the problem. China has been the principal focus of U.S. intellectual property rights (IPR) policy for many years. As its economy developed, China built a sophisticated body of law that includes IPR protection. It has a vibrant, although awed, patent system. For a variety of historical reasons, however, as well as because of economic and commercial practices and ocial policies aimed to favor Chinese entities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 and spur economic growth and technological advancement, China is the world’s largest source of IP the. e evidence presented here is a compilation of the best governmental and private studies undertaken to date, interviews, individual cases, assessments of the impact of IP the on the American economy, and examinations of PRC policies. ere is now enough information, in our view, to warrant urgent consideration of the ndings and recommendations that follow. e IP Commission has met numerous times over the course of an eleven-month period; heard from experts and specialists on international law, the American legal system, cybersecurity, and the economy, as well as from industry representatives and many others; and conducted research on a range of topics. e Commission has also reviewed the current actions being taken by the U.S. government and international organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the recommendations of ocial and private studies of the problem. Both current and proposed actions generally emphasize more intensive government-to-government communication requesting foreign governments to rein in their companies and other actors. e Commission judges that the scope of the problem requires stronger action, involving swier and more stringent penalties for IP the. e Commission believes that over the long term, as their companies mature and have trade secrets to protect, China and other leading infringers will develop adequate legal regimes to protect the intellectual property of international companies as well as domestic companies. e United States cannot aord to wait for that process, however, and needs to take action in the near term to protect its own economic interests. e Commissioners unanimously advocate the recommendations contained within this report. Key Findings The Impact of International IP Theft on the American Economy Hundreds of billions of dollars per year. e annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion. e exact gure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. e members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing the of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” Millions of jobs. If IP were to receive the same protection overseas that it does here, the American economy would add millions of jobs. A drag on U.S.