c




 
  

  
 
c    
͞Intellectual property protection is an increasingly important tool for countries at every stage of development, and
nations that fail to protect intellectual property will be left behind.͟
Acting on this warning from the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law1, my partner and I stand
÷
 
     
  


 

÷




In order to provide clarity for the round, we offer 


 ! 


c



 

c , are defined by the Congressional Research Service2 as, ͞IPR are legal rights granted by governments to
encourage innovation and creative output. They ensure that creators reap the benefits of their inventions or works and may take the form of patents, trade secrets, copyrights,

trademarks, or geographical indications.͟

Before we look at a specific course of action, let͛s look at the status quo in 

" #
 
Russia͛s prolonged efforts to join the World Trade Organization have previously been resisted by the United States
citing rampant violations of U.S. intellectual property rights. This trend was reversed in a historic agreement signed
in 2006 that outlined concrete steps for the betterment of the intellectual property situation in Russia.



$% &

Professors Robert Bird and Daniel Cahoy 3 report:
͞In November 2006, Russian and American trade representatives signed a ͞Side Letter͟ formally known as the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Market Access
Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights.30 This letter was negotiated in the context of Russia͛s continuing efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO).31 The
letter establishes a binding blueprint for Russia to improve intellectual property enforcement, strengthen various [and] laws, and
fully implement the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [or] (TRIPS).32͟

Unfortunately, while this initial act of goodwill was iconic of a new level of economic cooperation, it has proved little
more than that.


#$ '


While the U.S. Trade Representative4 affirms that the deadline for compliance with this agreement was set at June
1, 2007, The Washington University Global Studies Law Review5 in 2010 reports that:
͞Unfortunately, however, Russia has failed to meet the requirements of this Side Letter. While the country has made many amendments to its intellectual property

legislation,11 there are still glaring deficiencies in its legal scheme[,]. Moreover, despite enhanced police and agency enforcement, Russian courts remain

notoriously reluctant to engage in decisions regarding intellectual property violations[,].12 Despite seizures of goods and arrests, charges
are seldom pursued to conviction, offenders are often freed only to resume pirating activities, and illegal copies are
returned to the streets for sale.13͟

1
Juan Bacalski [J.D., University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 2007; B.S., Animal Physiology and Neuroscience, University of
California, San Diego, 1993] ͞MEXICO͛S PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT DILEMMA AND THE LESSON OF INDIA͟ Arizona Journal of International
& Comparative Law Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 717-746 (2006) (EG)
2
Shayera Ilias [Analyst in International Trade and Finance] & Ian F. Fergusson [Specialist in International Trade and Finance] ͞Intellectual
Property Rights and International Trade͟ February 5, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE <accessed May 30, 2010> (EG)
3
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] ͞The Emerging BRIC Economies: Lessons from Intellectual Property
Negotiation and Enforcement͟ 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)
4
͞2010 Special 301 Report: Russia͟ 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)
5
Esprit Eugster [J.D. Candidate (2010), Washington University School of Law] ͞Evolution and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Law in
Russia͟ (2010) WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY GLOBAL STUDIES LAW REVIEW Vol. 9, pp. 131 (EG)
Page  of 
 c



 
  

  
 
c    

In light of the preceding information, my partner and I offer,



( % 
The Unites States Federal Government through an act of Congress and the President will enact the following
mandates
) 
  * &
 Russia must come into compliance with the ͚U.S.-Russia Bilateral Market Access
Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights͛ as evaluated by the US Trade Representative͛s annual progress report.

) 
"  !
&
%&  Deadline for compliance will be 3 years from an affirmative ballot. If non-
compliance persists Russia will be designated a Priority Foreign Country, however, sanctions will be pursued
independent of this designation. Specifically, privileges under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and Most
Favored Nation (MFN) trade status will be revoked.

These mandates will be enforced by the necessary bodies of the US Federal Government6 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 whether the plan is feasible in͙



+ 
, 
Compelling Russia to enforce its end of the IPR agreement will improve the intellectual property situation in Russia.

, $  -
Michael Mertens7, who has a J.D., writing with the Miami International & Comparative Law Journal argues that:
͞As a result of Russia͛s failure to control and reduce its piracy problem on its own, the United States should use section 301 sanctions
to compel compliance. Section 301 grew out of the 1974 Trade Act and it is the principal statutory mechanism by which the United States ͞protects its exports of goods and services from unfair trade
practices.306 The law empowers the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to oversee international piracy and sanction or discipline those countries that fail to develop and enforce copyright laws in accordance with established
agreements.307 Section 301 operates by requiring the USTR to make a yearly determination of countries that are denying adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights and placing those countries on a watch list,
priority watch list, or identifying a country as a Priority Foreign Country.308 The USTR uses the watch list and priority watch list to alert countries that their practices are being monitored by the USTR.309 A Priority Foreign
Country, the highest level of classification, is a country:
that has the most ͚onerous or egregious͛ practices that deny protection or equitable market access; (2) whose practices have the ͚greatest adverse impact,͛ either actual or potential, on the relevant U.S.
products; or (3) that is not engaging in good faith negotiations to provide effective protection of intellectual property rights.310
Once a country is identified as a Priority Foreign Country, the USTR must initiate an investigation against the country within thirty days.311 Once an investigation has been initiated, the USTR is required to request consultations with
the country to discuss its practices and possible resolutions to the problem.312 Based on the negotiations and investigation, the USTR must make a determination about whether violations do exist, and whether substantial progress
has been made by the offending country.313 If there are substantial violations, then the USTR is generally required to take action within thirty days of the determination.314 The three main tools that the USTR may use to force
compliance or reform are ͞the suspension of trade benefits, the imposition of duties or other import restrictions, and the entering into of binding agreements committing the country either to stop the offending practices or provide
the U.S. with compensatory trade benefits.͟315 Russia has been on the priority watch list since 1997.316 In 2005, the IIPA recommended that Russia be upgraded from the priority watch list to a Priority Foreign Country.317 It also
recommended that Russia͛s eligibility for the duty-free trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences Program318 (GSP) should be suspended.319 Despite the fact that Russia has one of the highest piracy rates in the
world, they still received 429.8 million[s] [of] dollars worth of trade benefits under the GSP program in 2003.320 Even though Russia has made amiable attempts over the years to pass adequate legislation, its attempt to enforce those

Russia͛s piracy problem has become worse each year.322 The popularity of illegal online distribution of music in Russia
laws against piracy have repeatedly failed.321 As a result,

and the government͛s failure thus far to stop it is evidence that the piracy problem could become exponentially worse in the near future unless something
is done.323 The United States should immediately suspend Russia͛s GSP benefits until the country recognizes the online piracy problem
and until it enforces copyright protection to the extent that a noticeable reduction in piracy results.͟

 

6
Necessary bodies may include: Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International Trade Commission and the National
Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council
7
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 Age͟ MIAMI INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW (2006) [14 U. Miami
Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 139, 2006] (EG) [Brackets Added]
Page " of 
 c



 
  

  
 
c    

, #$  
The IPR Agreement seeks to decrease piracy through three approaches.
First, Improved Laws by fulfilling international obligations
Second, Efficiency through role clarifying and better raid processes
And third, Increased Enforcement by taking actions and enforcing criminal penalties

Collectively, these three prongs would significantly decrease piracy.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)8 which represents the interests of over 1900 American
companies argues in 2011 that:
͞A roadmap for success exists: namely, for the USG and Russian authorities to ensure the full implementation of the
November 19, 2006, IPR Agreement between the Governments of Russia and the United States.2 The IPR Agreement reflects Russia͛s acknowledgment of the
numerous legal reforms and enforcement steps it needs to undertake to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and to modernize and improve its copyright system
for the benefit of Russian and foreign authors, performers, and producers. As the U.S. Government has consistently noted, Russia must meet the IPR Agreement obligations
on protection and enforcement as part of its entry into the WTO. Russia͛s
full compliance with the IPR Agreement should be considered in
the Special 301 context, as well as during its review under the General System of Preferences (GSP) program (assuming
the program is reauthorized). In 2010, Russia benefited from over $553 million in unilateral duty free Generalized System of Preferences (͞GSP͟) benefits in the U.S. market.
Compliance with the IPR Agreement will help to significantly reduce piracy, which harms all creators ʹ [the] U.S. and
Russian alike ʹ and should be appropriately reflected in Russia͛s Special 301 status.͟

In order to fully appreciate the outlined progress, we have to understand the rationale for enforcing IPRs in the first
place.


 .
!


þ

  



$/00,


The Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property9 in 2007 reports that:
͞The International Intellectual Property Alliance has estimated that Russian piracy of IP costs U.S. industries $1.7 billion in 2005 alone, and the estimate is $6.5 billion over the

last five years.͟

And the Congressional Research Service10 reported losses of:

͞This report cites industry estimates that online piracy and other copyright infringements cost U.S. intellectual property owners more than $2.8 billion in losses in 2008.͟ [alone]
 

8
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) [Coalition of seven member associations representing over 1,900 U.S. copyright based
companies, provides annual estimates of U.S. trade loss associated with copyright infringements in selected countries] ͞2011 Special 301
Report on Copyright Enforcement and Protection: Russian Federation͟ February 15, 2011 INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ALLIANCE (IIPA, Special 301 Report, p. 121) <IIPA 2011 URL> (EG)
9
Robert B. Ahdieh [Professor of law and the director of the Center on Federalism and Intersystemic Governance at Emory Law School] Zhu
(Julie) Lee [Partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP] Srividhya Ragavan [Associate professor of law at University of Oklahoma College of
Law] Kevin Noonan [Partner at the law firm McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff LLP] & Clinton W. Francis [Professor of law at
Northwestern University School of Law] ͞The Existing Legal Infrastructure of BRICs: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?͟
NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Summer 2007) <accessed May 30, 2010> (EG)
10
Jim Nichol, Coordinator [Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs] William H. Cooper [Specialist in International Trade and Finance] Carl
Ek [Specialist in International Relations] Steven Woehrel [Specialist in European Affairs] Amy F. Woolf [Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy]
Steven A. Hildreth [Specialist in Missile Defense] Vincent Morelli [Section Research Manager] ͞Russian Political, Economic, and Security
Issues and U.S. Interests͟ RL33407 (January 29, 2010) CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE <accessed July 23, 2010> www.opencrs.com
(EG)
Page ( of 
 c



 
  

  
 
c    


#$ ,


The Washington University Global Studies Law Review11 in 2010 reports that:
͞Reports suggest that Russia loses $823 million in taxes and thousands of jobs because legitimate markets are replaced by markets

for pirated goods.23͟

The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights12, also in 2010, found that:
͞Yet, Russia͛s rampant counterfeiting and trademark violations are estimated to cost billions of dollars annually in lost

revenues to businesses operating in Russia, and to Russia͛s federal and regional budgets it costs hundreds of millions
of dollars each year in lost taxes, duties and investment.͟



$%,
 

&,
&

David Hindman13 with the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law established that:
͞Strong IP rights encourage economic development in several ways: (1) by promoting domestic innovation through protecting nascent technology; (2)
by preventing ͞brain drain͟ (the loss of human resources) through ensuring that innovators are rewarded for their efforts; and (3)
by fostering technology transfers such as FDI.80͟

Moving beyond the economics, intellectual property rights carry significant security and health implications as well.
þ
   
This often times misunderstood violation of trademarks has exploded in Russia.


$

 !

! 


The New York Times14 reported in 2006 that:
͞Counterfeit prescription drugs are proliferating in Russia, and in many other countries, according to industry experts and the [FDA]
Food and Drug Administration.͟

More recently, the Stimson Center15 in 2011 established Russia as a 

 producer of counterfeits.

11
Eugster 2010
12
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 the Baltic States, Russia, Ukraine, and other countries of the
former Soviet Union; CIPR is accredited with formal Observer 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 Russia͛s Economic
Revival͟ 2010 <accessed July 12, 2010> http://www.cipr.org/activities/articles/RBWipr.pdf (EG)
13
David Hindman [J.D., May 2006, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law; Masters in Business Administration, May 2006,
University of Arizona; B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2002, Brigham Young University.] ͞THE EFFECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIMES
ON FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN DEVELOPING ECONOMIES͟ ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW Vol. 23, No. 2
(2006) pp. 467-492 <accessed June 17, 2010> (EG)
14
ANDREW E. KRAMER ͞Drug Piracy: A Wave of Counterfeit Medicines Washes Over Russia͟ September 5, 2006 NEW YORK TIMES
<accessed June 16, 2010> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/worldbusiness/05fake.html (EG)
15
Brian D. Finlay [Co-director of the Cooperative Nonproliferation System, a multifaceted initiative designed to speed up present efforts
and build progressive new initiatives aimed at avoiding nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons terrorism] ͞COUNTERFEIT DRUGS AND
NATIONAL SECURITY,͟ February 2011, The Stimson Center [A community of analysts devoted to offering practical, creative, non-partisan
solutions to enduring and challenging problems of national and international security. Through our work, we seek to foster a world in which
collaborative instruments of security, cooperation, and peace overtake humanity͛s historic tendencies toward conflict and war.]
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Full_-_Counterfeit_Drugs_and_National_Security.pdf (EG)
͞Other major producers include Nigeria, Russia, Mexico, Brazil and Latin America. Gray and substandard pharmaceutical product
manufactures in the United States also pose a serious challenge to both public health and national security.͟
Page + of 
 c



 
  

  
 
c    
Regrettably, counterfeiting poses significant threats to public health.


#$)

The Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights16 documented:
͞In 1999-2000 Russian authorities registered several cases of wide-scale production and circulation of counterfeits.
It is estimated that at least 1 million people fell victim to fake medicines.͟

This risk has not faded with time. The US-Russia Experts Forum17 in 2007 found that:
͞Over 30,000 Russians die each year from drinking bootleg vodka.͟

The threats from counterfeiting are not confined to Russian health.



$c
 

c  

Writing again in 2011, the Stimson Center18 warns that:
͞Indeed, not only have groups such as the Russian mafia, Colombian drug cartels, Chinese triads, and Mexican drug gangs all become heavily involved in

producing and trafficking counterfeit drugs over the past decade, but mounting evidence also points to the direct
involvement of Hezbollah and al Qaeda.5 With increased opportunity to make gains from the pharmaceutical counterfeit industry, nefarious actors are likely to pay even more attention to it in
the future. As such, the problem is not only a public health hazard of highest magnitude; it is also a[n] national and international

security threat.͟

Underrated as a public and foreign policy priority, the enforcement of intellectual property rights is of paramount
importance in light of its economic, humanitarian, and security implications on a global scale. These clear and
present dangers combined with an equally clear solution all warrant an affirmative ballot.

16
Elena Subbotina, ͞Medicine May Cost Your Life,͟ October 11, 2001, 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 the Baltic States, Russia, Ukraine, and other countries of the former Soviet Union; CIPR is accredited with formal Observer
Status by the intergovernmental CIS Interstate Council on Industrial Property Protection. The U.S.-Russia Business Council is an Associate
Member of CIPR] http://www.cipr.org/activities/aipm/vremyamn.htm (EG)
17
Vyacheslav Gavrilov [PhD in Juridical Sciences, Kazan State University; JSD 2006; Served as the dean of the International Law Department
and head of the International Law͛s Chair of the Law Institute at the Far Eastern National University (FENU) since 1995; Former assistant
and associate professor of law at FENU; Author of 60 scientific publications devoted to actual problems of international public and private
law, including two monographs and textbook ͞International Private Law: Course of Lectures͟; Member in the Executive Committee of the
Russian Association of International Law and cofounder and attorney of the Board of Lawyers ͞Etalon͟ in Vladivostok] & Kevin M. Reichelt
[JD, University of Oregon School of Law; Bachelor of Science in Biology and Neurophysiology, University of Oregon; LLM Public International
Law, University College London; Provides for IIPI (International Intellectual Property Institute) critical research on IP policy and trading
efforts in developing countries, organizes conferences addressing areas of concern regarding IP and development, and engages in report
writing and various projects at the Institute; Technology Entrepreneur Fellow where he researched and advised on the marketability of
patented technologies developed at the University of Oregon and the US Department of Energy͛s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]
͞The Fight against Counterfeiting and Piracy: IP Enforcement in the Russian Federation͟ Policy Brief (November 2007) US ʹ RUSSIA EXPERTS
FORUM <accessed July 12, 2010> http://s251835929.onlinehome.us/reports/IIPI%20Russia%20Policy%20Paper%20-
%20Reichelt_Gavrilov%20ENG.pdf (EG)
18
Finlay 2011
Page  of