New WLF Paper Details Below-the-Radar Foreign Regulatory Threats to U.S. High Tech

Economic growth and job creation in the United States today relies heavily upon expansion and innovation from industries which develop and commercialize highly complex technology.  Enterprises and entrepreneurs in these industries require constant access to capital, and investors who can provide such financial resources must consider the potential risks and rewards.  The creation of new medical products, software, or energy technology are inherently uncertain, a reality which is increasingly exacerbated by legal and regulatory risks in the U.S. and abroad.

A new Washington Legal Foundation Working Paper,  Emerging Risks For U.S. High Tech: How Foreign “Public Interest” Regulation Threatens Property Rights And Innovation pinpoints diminishing international respect for one essential legal protection – private intellectual property (IP) rights – as the greatest current and future driving force behind regulatory risk for U.S. high-tech investment and innovation.  Written by Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development President Lawrence Kogan, the paper details how some nations and their non-governmental organization (NGO) allies are systematically advancing the notion that technology which benefits health, education, the environment, etc., should be public property, and thus IP rights awarding private profits are against the public interest.  Nations and NGOs are pursuing this controversial concept through regulatory imposition in countries such as Brazil, India, South Africa, and China, as well as in below-the-radar international standards setting groups and organizations like the United Nations and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Mr. Kogan focuses on two governmental regulatory instruments that can directly or indirectly erode private property rights – compulsory licenses which force healthcare and energy companies to essentially give away their products; and government procurement rules which impose national purchasing preferences for patent-free and royalty-free products.  The latter of the two directly impacts software, “SMART” energy, and information technology and discriminates against proprietary innovation models in favor of the “open” source model.  The Working Paper meticulously documents the past year’s developments on these two regulatory instruments and urges IP-based businesses and their investors to monitor activities at WIPO and other international organizations in the coming year.  Mr. Kogan also counsels vigilance by U.S. government trade officials, who should take action under international trade and competition laws if foreign compulsory licensing or procurement rules discriminate against American businesses.

Last Week at WLF

Litigation Updates:

  • In re Securities & Exchange Commission Proposed Whistleblower Rules
    On December 17, 2010, WLF urged the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to revise its proposed rules for implementing a new whistleblower law, before issuing them in final form. In formal comments filed with the SEC, WLF expressed a longstanding interest in the work of the SEC, especially as it pertains to protecting employees, consumers, pensioners, and investors from stock losses caused by abusive securities and class action litigation.
  • Friedman v. Sebelius
    On December 13, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined to overturn draconian penalties imposed on three pharmaceutical executives after they pled guilty to misdemeanor charges under the “responsible corporate officer” (RCO) doctrine. The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging that the penalties be set aside. WLF charged that by imposing the penalties and threatening to impose similar penalties in a wide array of cases, federal healthcare officials have completely misunderstood the nature of the RCO doctrine.
  • Commonwealth of Va. v. Sebelius
    On December 13, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Virginia’s constitutional challenge to the individual mandate contained in the new federal health care law. The decision was a clear victory for WLF, which had filed a brief in the case in support of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s challenge to the recently enacted Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a federal law containing an individual mandate that would require all uninsured Americans, under threat of civil penalty, to purchase health insurance for themselves and their dependents.

New Publications:

From the Legal Pulse: