bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Advertising partner

[Sponsored Article]
There is growing uncertainty about how recent trade disputes between the United States and China will be resolved, and how it could affect the rest of the world.
Academics from The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), City University of New York, and the University of Texas in Dallas who examined the two countries’ global trading history and relationship believe they can provide valuable insights into the possible outcome.
In November 2018, the trade dispute ceased for 90 days to allow for more talks. The Chinese President Xi Jinping and American President Donald Trump came to this agreement on 1 December in Buenos Aires at the end of the G20 summit; their first talks since the trade dispute began. Representatives from the two nations then held two days of talks at the end of January, with the United States saying they were considering a trip to Beijing in early February to resume negotiations. The trip was ruled out by Donald Trump, but several rounds of talks commenced later in the month.
In April, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow reportedly said that China had admitted to the US that the accusations that Beijing engages in intellectual property theft were true. 
“Given the scope and scale of potential intellectual property rights (IPR) violations in China, the US has frequently sought better IPR protection in China and has been concerned by what they see as a lack of progress, in spite of recent improvements,” says Prof. David Ahlstrom of CUHK Business School, referring to his study entitled ‘History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property’.
Prof. Ahlstrom has been named by the Clarivate Analytics list of Highly Cited Researchers 2018 as one of the world’s top researchers who has demonstrated significant influence by publication of multiple highly cited papers during the last decade from 2006-2016. 
He and his co-authors of the paper, Prof. Mike W. Peng and Prof. Shawn M. Carraher of the University of Texas at Dallas, and Prof. Shi Weilei (Stone) of City University of New York share similar points of view. They believe that the key to predicting the future development of IPR lies in a deeper understanding of the history of US IPR development, which reveals interesting historical parallels with the current situation in China.
“Many people take for granted that the US is a leading IPR champion and China is a leading IPR violator,” Prof. Ahlstrom explains. “Yet as recently as the 19th century, the US was a leading IPR violator.”
For more than 100 years, between the founding of the United States in 1776 and the enactment of the Chace Act in 1891 – which gave US copyright protection to citizens of other countries and a similar degree of protection to US citizens – the pirating of British and foreign publications, such as books, and entertainment, such as stage plays, was widely practiced by numerous Americans.
The United States, with its lower levels of literary and economic development, was slow to introduce the protection of foreign IPR because it knew the potential benefits would simply go to foreign inventors, authors and firms, such as British publishers, while domestic consumers would face higher costs for books, media products and innovative goods.
Even US author Edgar Allan Poe copied works of British authors for his co-authored 1839 textbook on molluscs. And it was the only book that Poe made much money on in his lifetime.
“Such plagiarism was quickly discovered,” says Prof. Ahlstrom. “Poe admitted as much in his own writings, but with no international copyright agreement, the original British publisher had no recourse.” 
The professor adds that while China’s current IPR laws were generally well-crafted and had pushed much of the IPR violation underground, enforcement is weak.
“Thousands of firms and tens of thousands of individuals have made rational decisions – from their standpoint at least – to engage in piracy and counterfeiting,” he says.
For proven violations, current Chinese law generally imposes a maximum fine of one million yuan (US$160,000). However, the average award is only 190,000 yuan (US$30,000) – hardly enough to deter potential violators and that amount may not even cover legal costs.
Stronger IP protection, such as criminalising all counterfeiting activities – instead of only large-scale counterfeiting above a certain threshold – is likely to significantly reduce counterfeiters’ incentives.
Beijing’s reluctance to increase the maximum fine for IPR violations may be the result of concerns that at this relatively early stage of China’s development, satisfying US IPR demands may result in foreign, and primarily US IP rights holders benefitting more: In short, costs may exceed benefits.
“An institution-based view of IPR history suggests that both the US refusal to protect foreign IPR in the 19th century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet US IPR demands, represent rational choices,” explains Prof. Ahlstrom.
“However, as cost-benefit considerations change, institutional transitions are possible,” Prof. Ahlstrom says, citing the work of Prof. Mike Peng. 
Back in late 19th century America, pressure for change came from numerous inventors, authors, and organisations, who were keen to market their products abroad, but knew they would get better IPR protection from foreign governments only if Washington offered equivalent protection to foreign IP rights holders in the United States.
Prof. Ahlstrom says research showed that it was only when the US economy was taking off, and its IP production was extensive enough, that it felt it could extend IPR protection to foreigners.
He adds that since the 2000s China had actively promoted innovation and IPR – with patent applications rising from 476,000 in 2005 to more than 1.2 million in 2010. Today it is the world leader in patent applications.
Given the domestic and international complaints about the lack of IPR expertise among judges, China has also set up a system of specialised IP courts led by judges specifically trained in IPR enforcement.
As a result, IPR litigation has skyrocketed, with China now the world’s most litigious IPR nation, in terms of the number of cases.
This change is a result of foreign pressure, greater invention by firms and citizens and the gradual public recognition of the wider financial benefits of stronger IPR protection. Both the Chinese government and businesses realise that more sustained economic growth will increasingly need to draw on IPR.
Prof. Ahlstrom adds that China’s economic development will help improve IPR protection, just as US economic development did in the 19th century. Poor countries still have little IPR to protect themselves.
As inventive capacity emerges, competition is often based on imitation. Therefore most economic and political interests prefer weak IPR protection. However, when an economy develops further, additional inventive capacity and demands for high-quality products emerge. Commercial lobbies demand effective protection – a domestic interest that coincides with the foreign interest in better IPR protection. 
We predict that to the same extent that the US voluntarily agreed to strengthen IPR protection when the US economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, so China will similarly enhance its IPR protection.
Prof. David Ahlstrom
US businesses that are now complaining about IPR violations in China could also learn how British authors, composers and firms dealt with American counterfeiters over 100 years ago, according to Prof. Ahlstrom.
For example, British composers Gilbert and Sullivan brought their entire troupe to New York to perform the comic opera The Pirates of Penzance. By doing this, they succeeded in wrong-footing the copycats, who had paid no royalties when performing their earlier hit, HMS Pinafore.
In contemporary China, many multinationals have adapted to Beijing’s IPR system by using a Gilbert-and-Sullivan-style pre-emptive strategy, he explains.
Specifically, they quickly file patents and trademarks, including Chinese language trademarks, or set up strategic alliances with dependable Chinese partners, which makes major patent infringement more difficult.
Prof. Ahlstrom says that showing how the US has transformed itself into a leading IPR champion, could throw light on the current US-China debate on IPR.
“We predict that to the same extent that the US voluntarily agreed to strengthen IPR protection when the US economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, so China will similarly enhance its IPR protection,” Prof. Ahlstrom says.
“We further predict that when Chinese IPR is significantly violated abroad, China will become more serious about IPR protection. Therefore, we suggest that China’s domestic innovation policies need to be strengthened instead of discouraged by foreign IP rights holders, governments, and other stakeholders,” he adds.
For more insights, please visit the website of China Business Knowledge @ CUHK.
About the Researcher
David Ahlstrom (PhD, New York University) is a Professor in the Department of Management at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research focuses on innovation, entrepreneurship, and China business. More recently, he has been researching intellectual property rights and economic growth. Professor Ahlstrom has published numerous papers in international journals, as well as an international management textbook. He has extensive teaching and consulting experience. He has also served as Chief and Senior Editor of Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Journal of World Business. Recently, he was recognised as one of the most highly cited researchers worldwide in management over the past decade by Clarivate (formerly Thomson Reuters).


How Labour Power Shapes Corporate Payout Policy

When Family Trusts Affect the Value of Firms

Earning a High Salary and Having a Secure Job May Make You More Optimistic

Does Religion Affect Loan Approvals?

China Business Knowledge

CUHK Business School

How the US-China Trade Dispute Will Move Forward

Business

Why the United States went from a 19th-century violator to a champion of intellectual property rights may show how the trade dispute with China will move forward
