Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard

1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

“Intellectual property protection is an increasingly important tool for countries at every stage
of development, and nations that fail to protect intellectual property will be left behind.”
Acting on this warning from the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law1, my
partner and I stand Resolved: That the U.S. federal government should significantly reform its
policy toward Russia.

In order to provide clarity for the round, we offer Section 1: Definitions

Intellectual Property Rights or IPRs, are defined by the Congressional Research Service2
as, “IPR are legal rights granted by governments to encourage innovation and creative output. They ensure that creators reap the benefits of their inventions or works and may take the
form of patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, or geographical indications.”

Before we look at a specific course of action, let’s look at the status quo in Section 2:
Russia’s prolonged efforts to join the World Trade Organization have previously been resisted
by the United States citing rampant violations of U.S. intellectual property rights. This trend
was reversed in a historic agreement signed in 2006 that outlined concrete steps for the
betterment of the intellectual property situation in Russia.

Point A) The Agreement

Professors Robert Bird and Daniel Cahoy3 report:
“In November 2006, Russian and American trade representatives signed a “Side Letter” formally known as the U.S.-Russia
Bilateral Market Access Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights.30 This letter was negotiated in the context of
Russia’s continuing efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO).31 The letter establishes a binding blueprint for Russia

to improve intellectual property enforcement, strengthen various [and] laws, and fully implement the Agreement on Trade-related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [or] (TRIPS).32”

Unfortunately, while this initial act of goodwill was iconic of a new level of economic
cooperation, it has proved little more than that.
Point B) Deadlines Violated
While the U.S. Trade Representative4 affirms that the deadline for compliance with this
agreement was set at June 1, 2007, The Washington University Global Studies Law Review5 in
2010 reports that:

1 Juan Bacalski [J.D., University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2007; B.S., Animal Physiology and
Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego, 1993] “MEXICO’S PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT DILEMMA AND
THE LESSON OF INDIA” Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 717-746 (2006)

2 Shayera Ilias [Analyst in International Trade and Finance] & Ian F. Fergusson [Specialist in International Trade
and Finance] “Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade” February 5, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE <accessed May 30, 2010> (EG)

3 Robert C. Bird [Assistant Professor, School of Business, University of Connecticut] & Daniel R. Cahoy [Associate
Professor of Business Law, Smeal College of Business, the Pennsylvania State University] “The Emerging BRIC
Economies: Lessons from Intellectual Property Negotiation and Enforcement” NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF
TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 400-425(Summer 2007) <accessed June 17,
2010> (parenthesis added for clarification) (EG)

4 “2010 Special 301 Report: Russia” April 30, 2010 Office of the United States Trade Representative,
Ambassador Ron Kirk, United States Trade Representative <accessed July 22, 2010>
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1906 (EG)

Page 1 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard
“Unfortunately, however, Russia has failed to meet the requirements of this Side Letter. While the country has made many
amendments to its intellectual property legislation,11 there are still glaring deficiencies in its legal scheme[,]. Moreover, despite

enhanced police and agency enforcement, Russian courts remain notoriously reluctant to engage in decisions

regarding intellectual property violations[,].12 Despite seizures of goods and arrests, charges are seldom pursued
to conviction, offenders are often freed only to resume pirating activities, and illegal copies are
returned to the streets for sale.13”

5 Esprit Eugster [J.D. Candidate (2010), Washington University School of Law] “Evolution and Enforcement of
Intellectual Property Law in Russia” (2010) WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY GLOBAL STUDIES LAW REVIEW Vol. 9, pp.
131 (EG)

Page 2 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

In light of the preceding information, my partner and I offer,

Section 3: The Plan
The Unites States Federal Government through an act of Congress and the President will
enact the following mandates
Mandate 1: Requirements: Russia must come into compliance with the ‘U.S.-Russia
Bilateral Market Access Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights’ as evaluated by the US
Trade Representative’s annual progress report.

Mandate 2: Enforcement Timeline: Deadline for compliance will be 3 years from an

affirmative ballot. If non-compliance persists Russia will be designated a Priority Foreign
Country, however, sanctions will be pursued independent of this designation. Specifically,
privileges under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and Most Favored Nation (MFN)
trade status will be revoked.

These mandates will be enforced by the necessary bodies of the US Federal Government6 and
are open to clarification by the affirmative team.

Before we look at the specific benefits of the affirmative plan, we need to look at whether the
plan is feasible in…

Section 4: Solvency
Compelling Russia to enforce its end of the IPR agreement will improve the intellectual
property situation in Russia.
Solvency A) Pressure is Needed
Michael Mertens7, who has a J.D., writing with the Miami International & Comparative Law
Journal argues that:
“Among the world leaders in global music piracy, Russia has one of the largest piracy
problems.29 Its pirate market value currently stands at $332 million.30 In the past, Russia’s piracy problem was restrained to physical piracy of CDs, but as the country has
quickly entered the digital age, a new problem has emerged. 31 Russia has now developed a thriving online music sales business, and these websites are slowly gaining popularity in the

U.S. and elsewhere. These websites prove that despite constant pressure by the U.S. and the international community, Russia has consistently failed to
curb it[.]s piracy problem. Even pressure from the World Trade Organization32 to conform to its standards required for admission has failed. Copyright infringers are finding novel
ways such as the Internet to pirate their goods, while the Russian government still struggles to police and prosecute the more traditional types of piracy.33 In order to fight

Internet piracy and prevent it from becoming an even larger problem, the U.S. must take a two-pronged
approach. First U.S. copyright owners must set an example to Russia by suing the infringers, regardless of their chance of success. Second, the U.S. must take drastic steps to pressure the

Russian government to solve the piracy problem itself by impos[e]ing trade sanctions.”

6 Necessary bodies may include: Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International Trade
Commission and the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council

7 Michael F. Mertens [J.D., University of Tulsa Law School; B.A., University of Iowa] “Thieves in Cyberspace:
Examining Music Piracy and Copyright Law Defciencies in Russia as It Enters the Digital Age” MIAMI
INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW (2006) [14 U. Miami Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 139, 2006] (EG)
[Brackets Added]

Page 3 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

Solvency B) Piracy Reduced

Focusing on key aspects of the US-Russia agreement there are three main components
First: Improved laws. The agreement outlines required amendments to copyright law and
bringing laws into compliance with its international treaty obligations.

Second: Efficiency. Agencies are granted broader powers, laws are clarified to expedite
enforcement, & raid processes are improved. These steps are designed to make enforcement
more effective and efficient to aid in the implementation of…

Component Three: Enforcement. Most significantly, deterrent penalties are implemented,

internet & optical disc piracy is combated, and border enforcement is improved.

These steps collectively produce the Impact: Piracy Significantly Reduced

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)8 which represents the interests of over
1900 American companies argues in 2010 that:
“Compliance with the IPR Agreement will help to significantly reduce piracy, which harms all
creators – [the] U.S. and Russian alike – and should be appropriately reflected in Russia’s Special 301 status.”

In order to fully appreciate the outlined progress, we have to understand the rationale for
enforcing IPRs in the first place.
Section 5: Justifications
Justification 1: Economics
Point A) U.S. Devastated
The Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property9 in 2007 reports that:
“The International Intellectual Property Alliance has estimated that Russian piracy of IP costs U.S. industries $1.7 billion in 2005 alone, and the estimate

is $6.5 billion over the last five years.”

And the Congressional Research Service10 reported losses of:

8 International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) [Coalition of seven member associations representing over
1,900 U.S. copyright based companies, provides annual estimates of U.S. trade loss associated with copyright
infringements in selected countries] “2010 Special 301 Report on Copyright Enforcement and Protection:
Russian Federation” February 18, 2010 INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE (IIPA, Special 301
Report, p. 121) <accessed June 15, 2010> http://www.iipa.com/countryreports.html (EG)

9 Robert B. Ahdieh [Professor of law and the director of the Center on Federalism and Intersystemic Governance
at Emory Law School] Zhu (Julie) Lee [Partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP] Srividhya Ragavan [Associate
professor of law at University of Oklahoma College of Law] Kevin Noonan [Partner at the law firm McDonnell,
Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff LLP] & Clinton W. Francis [Professor of law at Northwestern University School of
Law] “The Existing Legal Infrastructure of BRICs: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?”
<accessed May 30, 2010> (EG)

10 Jim Nichol, Coordinator [Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs] William H. Cooper [Specialist in
International Trade and Finance] Carl Ek [Specialist in International Relations] Steven Woehrel [Specialist in
European Affairs] Amy F. Woolf [Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy] Steven A. Hildreth [Specialist in Missile
Defense] Vincent Morelli [Section Research Manager] “Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues and U.S.
Interests” RL33407 (January 29, 2010) CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE <accessed July 23, 2010>
www.opencrs.com (EG)

Page 4 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard
“This report cites industry estimates that online piracy and other copyright infringements cost U.S. intellectual property owners more than $2.8 billion in losses in
2008.” [alone]

Page 5 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

Point B) Russia Devastated

The Washington University Global Studies Law Review11 in 2010 reports that:
“Reports suggest that Russia loses $823 million in taxes and thousands of jobs because legitimate

markets are replaced by markets for pirated goods.23”

The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights12, also in 2010, found that:
“Yet, Russia’s rampant counterfeiting and trademark violations are estimated to cost billions of

dollars annually in lost revenues to businesses operating in Russia, and to Russia’s federal
and regional budgets it costs hundreds of millions of dollars each year in lost taxes, duties and investment.”

Point C) The Advantage: Economic Development

David Hindman13 with the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law established
“Strong IP rights encourage economic development in several ways: (1) by promoting domestic innovation
through protecting nascent technology; (2) by preventing “brain drain” (the loss of human resources) through ensuring that

innovators are rewarded for their efforts; and (3) by fostering technology transfers such as FDI.80”

Moving beyond the economics, intellectual property rights carry significant security and
health implications as well.
Justification 2: Counterfeiting
This often times misunderstood violation of trademarks has exploded in Russia.
Point A) Counterfeit Proliferation
The New York Times14 reported in 2006 that:
“Counterfeit prescription drugs are proliferating in Russia, and in many other countries, according to industry
experts and the [FDA] Food and Drug Administration.”

More recently, the Stimson Center15 in 2011 established Russia as a major producer of

11 Eugster 2010

12 Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights [The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) is a private-
public partnership dedicated solely to the advancement of intellectual property protection and reform in the
Baltic States, Russia, Ukraine, and other countries of the former Soviet Union; CIPR is accredited with formal
Observer Status by the intergovernmental CIS Interstate Council on Industrial Property Protection. The U.S.-
Russia Business Council is an Associate Member of CIPR] “Intellectual Property Rights: A Key to Russia’s
Economic Revival” 2010 <accessed July 12, 2010> http://www.cipr.org/activities/articles/RBWipr.pdf (EG)

13 David Hindman [J.D., May 2006, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law; Masters in Business
Administration, May 2006, University of Arizona; B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2002, Brigham Young University.]
ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW Vol. 23, No. 2 (2006) pp. 467-492 <accessed June
17, 2010> (EG)

14 ANDREW E. KRAMER “Drug Piracy: A Wave of Counterfeit Medicines Washes Over Russia” September 5, 2006
NEW YORK TIMES <accessed June 16, 2010>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/worldbusiness/05fake.html (EG)

Page 6 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

Regrettably, counterfeiting poses significant threats to public health.

Point B) Millions Dead
The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights16 documented:
“In 1999-2000 Russian authorities registered several cases of wide-scale production and
circulation of counterfeits. It is estimated that at least 1 million people fell victim to fake

This risk has not faded with time. The US-Russia Experts Forum17 in 2007 found that:
“Over 30,000 Russians die each year from drinking bootleg vodka.”

The threats from counterfeiting are not confined to Russian health.

Point C) International Insecurity
Writing again in 2011, the Stimson Center18 warns that:
“Indeed, not only have groups such as the Russian mafia, Colombian drug cartels, Chinese triads, and Mexican drug gangs all

become heavily involved in producing and trafficking counterfeit drugs over the past decade,

15 Brian D. Finlay [Co-director of the Cooperative Nonproliferation System, a multifaceted initiative designed to
speed up present efforts and build progressive new initiatives aimed at avoiding nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons terrorism] “COUNTERFEIT DRUGS AND NATIONAL SECURITY,” February 2011, The Stimson
Center [A community of analysts devoted to offering practical, creative, non-partisan solutions to enduring and
challenging problems of national and international security. Through our work, we seek to foster a world in which
collaborative instruments of security, cooperation, and peace overtake humanity’s historic tendencies toward
conflict and war.] http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Full_-
_Counterfeit_Drugs_and_National_Security.pdf (EG)
“Other major producers include Nigeria, Russia, Mexico, Brazil and Latin America. Gray and substandard
pharmaceutical product manufactures in the United States also pose a serious challenge to both public health
and national security.”

16 Elena Subbotina, “Medicine May Cost Your Life,” October 11, 2001, COALITION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS [The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) is a private-public partnership dedicated solely to
the advancement of intellectual property protection and reform in the Baltic States, Russia, Ukraine, and other
countries of the former Soviet Union; CIPR is accredited with formal Observer Status by the intergovernmental
CIS Interstate Council on Industrial Property Protection. The U.S.-Russia Business Council is an Associate Member
of CIPR] http://www.cipr.org/activities/aipm/vremyamn.htm (EG)

17 Vyacheslav Gavrilov [PhD in Juridical Sciences, Kazan State University; JSD 2006; Served as the dean of the
International Law Department and head of the International Law’s Chair of the Law Institute at the Far Eastern
National University (FENU) since 1995; Former assistant and associate professor of law at FENU; Author of 60
scientific publications devoted to actual problems of international public and private law, including two
monographs and textbook “International Private Law: Course of Lectures”; Member in the Executive Committee
of the Russian Association of International Law and cofounder and attorney of the Board of Lawyers “Etalon” in
Vladivostok] & Kevin M. Reichelt [JD, University of Oregon School of Law; Bachelor of Science in Biology and
Neurophysiology, University of Oregon; LLM Public International Law, University College London; Provides for IIPI
(International Intellectual Property Institute) critical research on IP policy and trading efforts in developing
countries, organizes conferences addressing areas of concern regarding IP and development, and engages in
report writing and various projects at the Institute; Technology Entrepreneur Fellow where he researched and
advised on the marketability of patented technologies developed at the University of Oregon and the US
Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory] “The Fight against Counterfeiting and Piracy: IP
Enforcement in the Russian Federation” Policy Brief (November 2007) US – RUSSIA EXPERTS FORUM <accessed
July 12, 2010> http://s251835929.onlinehome.us/reports/IIPI%20Russia%20Policy%20Paper%20-
%20Reichelt_Gavrilov%20ENG.pdf (EG)

18 Finlay 2011

Page 7 of 8
Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard
but mounting evidence also points to the direct involvement of Hezbollah and al Qaeda.5 With
increased opportunity to make gains from the pharmaceutical counterfeit industry, nefarious actors are likely to pay even more attention to it in the future. As such, the

problem is not only a public health hazard of highest magnitude; it is also a[n] national and
international security threat.”

Underrated as a public and foreign policy priority, the enforcement of intellectual property
rights is of paramount importance in light of its economic, humanitarian, and security
implications on a global scale. These clear and present dangers combined with an equally
clear solution all warrant an affirmative ballot.

Page 8 of 8