Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Clark-Grizzard - 2010-2011 IPR 1AC

Clark-Grizzard - 2010-2011 IPR 1AC

Ratings: (0)|Views: 94 |Likes:
Published by Elliotgrizzard

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Elliotgrizzard on Sep 27, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Intellectual Property RightsFASDElliot Grizzard1ACRegion IXClark/Grizzard
“We value our heritage of innovation and exploration – it is not only part of our history; it isthe key to our future. This future—a future of innovation, exploration and growth thatbenefits the entire world—rests on a basic, inherent respect for intellectualproperty rights
and a system that protects them.”
 This reality as established by Chris Israel
, the US Coordinator for IPR Enforcement, is thereason that my partner and I stand
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policy towards Russia.
In order to provide clarity for the round, we offer
Section 1: Definitions
Intellectual Property Rights or IPRs
, are defined by the Congressional ResearchService
“IPR are legal rights granted by governments to encourage innovation and creative output. They ensure that creators reap the benefits of their inventions orworks and may take the form of 
patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, or geographicalindications.”Before we look at a specific way in which to affirm the resolution, we first need tounderstand the current system in
Section 2: Background
Since experiencing US trade pressure in the late 90s, Russia has more or less enforced IPRsto a certain degree culminating in a 2006 bilateral enforcement agreement. That’s
Point A) The Agreement
Robert Bird and Daniel Cahoy
 , both associate professors, report:“In November 2006, Russia
and America
n trade representatives
a “Side Letter” formally known as
the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Market Access Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights.
 This letter was negotiated in thecontext of Russia’s continuing efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization
The letter establishes a binding blueprint forRussia to improve intellectual property enforcement
, strengthen various
[and] laws
, and fully implement the Agreementon Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [or] (TRIPS).32”
Unfortunately, while this initial act of goodwill was iconic of a new level of economiccooperation, it has proved little more than that. And that’s
Point B) Deadlines Violated
 The US Trade Representative’s
2010 Special 301 report argues that:“In the IPR Bilateral Agreement, Russia committed to fight optical disc and Internet piracy,enact legislation to protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data
generated to obtain marketing approval
for pharmaceutical products,
deter piracy and counterfeiting through
criminal penalties, strengthen border enforcement, and conform its laws tointernational IPR norms. Russia’s continued delays
in fully implementing this Agreement
are particularly
Chris Israel [U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement] “Examining U.S.Government Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” November 7, 2007 Testimony before the SenateCommittee on the Judiciary, Office of the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement<accessed May 30, 2010>http://www.stopfakes.gov/pdf%5CCoordinators_Testimony.pdf  (EG)
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 CONGRESSIONALRESEARCH SERVICE <accessed May 30, 2010> (EG)
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] “TheEmerging 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)
“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)
Intellectual Property RightsFASDElliot Grizzard1ACRegion IXClark/Grizzard
troubling, since,
with respect to several of the obligations,
the IPR Bilateral Agreement established anagreed-upon deadline of June 1, 2007.”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 willenact the following mandates
Mandate 1: Requirements:
Russia must come into compliance with the ‘U.S.-RussiaBilateral Market Access Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights’ meeting the standardsoutlined by the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) in its 2010 Special 301report pages 134-135.
Mandate 2: Enforcement Timeline:
Deadline for compliance will be 3 years from anaffirmative ballot. If non-compliance persists, Section 301 of the US Trade Act will beinvoked to designate Russia a Priority Foreign Country, revoke privileges under theGeneralized System of Preferences (GSP) and Most Favored Nation trade status.Actions under Section 301 will be spaced out over 12 months.
 These mandates will be enforced by the necessary bodies of the US Federal Government
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 whetherthe plan is feasible in…
Section 4: Solvency
Compelling Russia to enforce its end of the IPR agreement will improve the intellectualproperty situation in Russia.
Solvency A) Pressure is Needed
Michael Mertens
  J.D. in 2006 urges the adoption of the affirmative plan:“Among the world leaders in global music piracy, Russia has one of the largest piracyproblems
Its pirate market value currently stands at $332 million.30 In the past, Russia’s piracy problem was restrained tophysical piracy of CDs, but as the country has quickly entered the digital age, a new problem has emerged. 31 Russia has now developeda thriving online music sales business, and these websites are slowly gaining popularity in the U.S. and elsewhere. These websites provethat despite constant pressure by the U.S.
the international community, Russia
has consistently failed to curbit[.]
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 topolice and prosecute the more traditional types of piracy.33
In order to fight
piracy and prevent it frombecoming an even larger problem, the U.S. must
take a two-pronged approach. First U.S. copyright owners must
Non-compliance immediately results in PFC designation, 6 months later if still non-compliant, GSP benefitsare removed, 6 months later if still not compliant, MFN status is revoked. The plan does not require orencourage additional sanctions after that time.
Necessary bodies include: Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of HomelandSecurity, Food and Drug Administration, Copyright Office, Department of State, U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International Trade Commission and the National IntellectualProperty Law Enforcement Coordinating Council
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” MIAMIINTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW (2006) [14 U. Miami Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 139, 2006] (EG)[Brackets Added]
Intellectual Property RightsFASDElliot Grizzard1ACRegion IXClark/Grizzard
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 Russiangovernment to solve the piracy problem itself by
trade sanctions.”
Solvency B) Increased Enforcement
 argues that:“Compliance with the IPR Agreement will help to significantly reduce piracy, which harms
allcreators –
[the] U.S. and Russia
n alike
and should be appropriately reflected in Russia’s Special301 status.”So we know that IPR enforcement is improved, But what are the benefits of IPRs in and of themselves?
Section 5: Justifications
 Justification 1: Economics
What makes this topic so important is that its effects are not merely domestic.
Point A) Multinational Devastation
Professors of law, Ahdieh, Ragavan and Francis along with attorneys at law, Lee andNoonan
 collaborated to interpret the long terms effects of Russian piracy on the US andfound that:
“The International Intellectual Property Alliance has estimated that
Russian piracy
of IP
U.S. industries
$1.7 billion in 2005 alone, and theestimate is
$6.5 billion over the last five years.”And the Congressional Research Service
 estimated losses of “more than $2.8 billion
in losses
in 2008” alone.Apart from the US however, IPRs have implications for Russia as well. The Coalition forIntellectual Property Rights
 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
IIPA, 2010
Robert B. Ahdieh [Professor of law and the director of the Center on Federalism and IntersystemicGovernance at Emory Law School] Zhu (Julie) Lee [Partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP] SrividhyaRagavan [Associate professor of law at University of Oklahoma College of Law] Kevin Noonan [Partner at thelaw firm McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff LLP] & Clinton W. Francis [Professor of law at NorthwesternUniversity School of Law] “The Existing Legal Infrastructure of BRICs: Where Have We Been and Where AreWe Going?” NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, Vol. 5, No. 3,(Summer 2007) <accessed May 30, 2010> (EG)
Jim Nichol, Coordinator [Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs] William H. Cooper [Specialist inInternational Trade and Finance] Carl Ek [Specialist in International Relations] Steven Woehrel [Specialist inEuropean Affairs] Amy F. Woolf [Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy] Steven A. Hildreth [Specialist in MissileDefense] Vincent Morelli [Section Research Manager] “Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues andU.S. Interests” RL33407 (January 29, 2010) CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE <accessed July 23, 2010>www.opencrs.com(EG)
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 theBaltic States, Russia, Ukraine, and other countries of the former Soviet Union; CIPR is accredited with formalObserver 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’sEconomic Revival” 2010 <accessed July 12, 2010>http://www.cipr.org/activities/articles/RBWipr.pdf (EG)

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Zack Voell added this note
^^ soooo not topical. : P : |
randomboy96 liked this
randomboy96 liked this
Preston Black liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->