The Office of the US Trade Representative reiterated a few days ago that the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) meetings have been cancelled. Whether any more of these meetings will be held will depend mainly on the successful reconciliation of the two sides' differing views, with intellectual property rights (IPR) being the top priority. The US has always seen the existence and continuation of the TIFA meetings as a premise for further talks regarding a free trade agreement.
This is not an isolated occurrence. The white paper on unfair trade published on March 29 this year by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also directs harsh criticism at Taiwan. The fact that two of Taiwan's most important trade partners single out the issue of intellectual property rights shows that we can no longer ignore the importance of this issue.
Taiwan has received crucial US assistance in its bid to gain accession to international organizations such as APEC and the WTO, but has also been on the receiving end of much US criticism during bilateral trade talks. The deepest difference of opinion involves IPR, including copyrights, patents and trademark rights. The US hopes that Taiwan will create legislation that goes further than the WTO trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights standards (TRIPS). The basic reason for this is that the US does not feel confident in Taiwan's ability to implement legislation or prohibit piracy. It therefore hopes that severe punishment and strict legislation will have some deterring effect to make up for shortcomings in implementation.
From a long-term perspective, because marginal profits on investment are going down, sources of economic growth will include "innovation." The question of how to allow innovators to reap the profits of innovation or, to put it in other words, how to guarantee their property rights, is key to guaranteeing that economic activities continue to bring forward new or innovative concepts.
From this point of view, IPR, like other property rights, involve considerations of economic incentive. However, if numbers of users are made the standard for evaluating economic efficiency, the use of IPR will diminish as a result of the need to support license fees, and this obviously does not meet demands for economic efficiency. In other words, the protection of IPR should find an equilibrium somewhere between technological development and technological dissemination.
Beginning in 1997, Taiwan has been amending IPR-related legislation. Forty-three percent of software in Taiwan is pirated, which is lower than the Asia Pacific average of 55 percent. That was a decrease of 10 percentage points when compared with the figures two years earlier. In 2001, the US company IBM collected over US$1 billion in fees from licenses originating in its patents, more than one-tenth of IBM's gross profits, which shows that such fees have become a major source of income.
Last year, Japan for the first time, experienced a surplus in patent-related license fees. This shows that, regardless of whether we are talking about a nation or a corporation, IPR will become an increasingly important part of economic growth. IPR are driving the development toward a knowledge economy, and are an important foundation for industrial transformation. Japan has already proposed the goal a "nation built on intellectual property rights," and Taiwan should follow suit. Most important is that we stick to our own rate of development and do not wait for "external forces" to apply pressure.
Honigmann Hong is an associate research fellow in the Division of International Affairs at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research. Lu Yi-hsun is an assistant research fellow at the institute.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers