How did the previously arcane, technical issue of intellectual property protection become elevated to the top tier of the U.S. trade agenda? A powerful coalition of private-sector industry associations, whose intellectual property constitutes increasingly valuable exports of goods and services, successfully lobbied for new domestic laws, and bilateral and multilateral negotiations linking intellectual property protection to international trade. They framed the problem in a way that captured the imagination of U.S. policymakers and marketed a trade-based approach as a solution to government concerns over the trade deficit and international competitiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashman, K.1989. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988: The Section 301 amendments. Boston University International Law Journal7 (spring): 115-153.
2.
Baik, C. 1993. Politics of Super 301: The domestic basis of U.S. foreign economic policy. Ph.d. diss., Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley.
3.
Bayard, T.1990. Comment on Alan Sykes' “Mandatory retaliation for breach of trade agreements: Some thoughts on the strategic design of Section 301.”Boston University International Law Journal8 (fall): 325-331.
4.
Bello, J.
, and A. Holmer. 1988. The heart of the 1988 trade act: A legislative history of the amendments to Section 301. Stanford Journal of International Law25 (fall): 1-44.
5.
Bhagwati, J.1989. United States trade policy at a crossroads. The World Economy12 (December): 439-479.
6.
Bliss, J.1989. The amendments to Section 301: An overview and suggested strategies for foreign response. Law and Policy in International Business20:501-528.
7.
Carribean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983. U.S. Public Law 98-67.
8.
Coffield, S.1981. Using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a response to foreign government trade actions: When, why and how. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation6 (summer): 381-405.
9.
D'Alessandro, J.1987. A trade-based response to intellectual property piracy: A comprehensive plan to aid the motion picture industry. The Georgetown Law Journal76:417-465.
10.
Destler, I.
1992. American trade politics. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
11.
Enyart, J.1990. A GATT intellectual property code. Les Nouvelles25 (June): 53-56.
12.
Fisher, B.
, and R. Steinhardt. 1982. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Law and Policy in International Business14:569-605.
13.
Hughes, D.1991. Opening up trade barriers with Section 301—A critical assessment. Wisconsin International Law Journal5:176-206.
14.
International Intellectual Property Alliance
. 1985. U.S. government trade policy: Views of the copyright industry. Report submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce. 99th Cong., 2d. sess.26 July.
15.
International Intellectual Property Alliance
. 1986. Piracy of U.S. copyrighted works in ten selected countries: A report by the International Intellectual Property Alliance to the U.S. Trade Representative. Report submitted to the U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance. 99th Cong., 2nd sess.14 May.
16.
Kaye, H.
, and P. Plaia. 1981. The filing and defending of Section 337 actions. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation6 (summer): 463-483.
17.
Kent, C.1993. NAFTA, TRIPS affect IP. Les Nouvelles28 (December): 176-181.
18.
Krasner, S.
1985. Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
Lande, S.
, and C. VanGrasstek. 1986. The Trade and Tariff Act of 1984: Trade policy in the Reagan administration. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
20.
Lash, W.1992. In our stars: The failure of American trade policy. North Carolina Journal of Law and Commercial Regulation18 (fall): 7-57.
Mossinghoff, G.
1984. The importance of intellectual property in international trade. Business America, 7 January, inside cover.
23.
Mossinghoff, G.1991. For better international protection. Les Nouvelles26 (June): 75-79.
24.
Neuman, W.1992. IPR protection improves, but reforms not uniform. Business Latin America20 (April): 127.
25.
Newman, A.1989. The amendments to Section 337: Increased protection for intellectual property rights. Law and Policy in International Business20:571-588.
26.
Odell, J.
, and I. Destler. 1987. Anti-protection: The changing face of U.S. trade politics. Washington, DC: Institute of International Economics.
27.
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. U.S. Public Law 100-418.
Reich, R.
, and I. Magaziner. 1982. Minding America's business: The decline and rise of the American economy. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
30.
Smart, T.1988. Knights of the roundtable: Tracking big business' agenda in Washington. Business Week, 21 October, 39-44.
31.
Strange, S.
1991. An eclectic approach. In The new international political economy, edited by C. Murphy and R. Tooze. Boulder, CO: Westview.
32.
Tariff Act of 1930. U.S. Statutes at Large 46:590-763.
33.
Thurow, L.
1985. The zero-sum solution: Building a world-class American economy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
34.
Trade Act of 1974. U.S. Public Law 93-618. 93rd Cong., 2d. sess., 3 January 1975.
35.
Trade Agreements Act of 1979. U.S. Public Law 96-39.
36.
Trade and Tariff Act of 1984. U.S. Public Law 8-573.
37.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984. Roger D. Severance trip report on consultations with Taiwan and Singapore on commercial counterfeiting. International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Memorandum, 6 June.
