Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard

1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

“We value our heritage of innovation and exploration – it is not only part of our history; it is
the key to our future. This future—a future of innovation, exploration and growth that
benefits the entire world—rests on a basic, inherent respect for intellectual property rights
1
and a system that protects them.”

This reality as established by Chris Israel, the US Coordinator for IPR Enforcement, is the
reason that my partner and I stand Resolved: that the United States Federal Government
should significantly reform its policy towards Russia.

In order to provide clarity for the round, we offer Section 1: Definitions

Intellectual Property Rights or IPRs, which will become a central concept in this
debate, are defined simply by the Congressional Research Service 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.”2

Before we look at a specific way in which to affirm the resolution, we first need to
understand the current system in Section 2: Background
Since experiencing US trade pressure in the late 90’s Russia has eagerly enforced IPRs.
This cooperative attitude culminated in a 2006 letter known as the ‘IPR Agreement.’
And that’s
Point A) The Agreement
Robert Bird and Daniel Cahoy, both associate professors, explain this agreement in 2007:
“In November 2006, Russian and American trade representatives signed a “Side Letter” formally known as the U.S.-
Russia Bilateral Market Access Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights.30 This letter was negotiated in the
context of Russia’s 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 laws, and fully
implement the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [or]
(TRIPS).32”3

1
Chris Israel [U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement] “Examining U.S.
Government Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” November 7, 2007 Testimony before the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Office of the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement
<accessed May 30, 2010> http://www.stopfakes.gov/pdf%5CCoordinators_Testimony.pdf (EG)
2
Shayera Ilias [Analyst in International Trade and Finance] & Ian F. Fergusson [Specialist in International
Trade and Finance] “Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade” 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 Enforcement”
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)
Page 1 of 5
 Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

Unfortunately, while this initial act of goodwill was iconic of a new level of economic
cooperation, it has proved little more than that. And that’s
Point B) Deadlines Violated
The US Trade Representative’s 2010 Special 301 report argues that:
“In the IPR Bilateral Agreement, Russia committed to fight optical disc and Internet piracy,
enact legislation to protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data
generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical products, deter piracy and counterfeiting through
enhanced criminal penalties, strengthen border enforcement, and conform its laws to
international IPR norms. Russia’s continued delays in fully implementing this Agreement are particularly
troubling, since, with respect to several of the obligations, the IPR Bilateral Agreement established an
agreed-upon deadline of June 1, 2007.”

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

Section 3: The Plan
The Unites States Federal Government through an act of Congress and the President will
enact the following mandates
Mandate 1: Requirements: Russia must comply with the ‘U.S.-Russia Bilateral Market
Access Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights’ meeting the standards outlined by the
IIPA in their 2010 Special 301 report pages 134-135.

Mandate 2: Enforcement Timeline: The deadline for compliance with the requirements
of mandate 1 will be 4 years from an affirmative ballot. If the deadline is not met,
graduating trade sanctions will be utilized for a continued 2 years.4

These mandates will be enforced by the necessary bodies5 of the US Federal Government
and are open to clarification by the affirmative team.

4
Deadline violation results in Generalized System of Preferences benefits revocation. An additional year of
non-compliance results in Most Favored Nation status revocation. A final year of non-compliance results in the
US Trade Representative designating Russia a Priority Foreign Country.
5
Necessary bodies include: Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland
Security, Food and Drug Administration, Copyright Office, Department of State, U.S. Agency for International
Development, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International Trade Commission and the National Intellectual
Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council
Page 2 of 5
 Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard
Before we look at the specific benefits of the affirmative plan, we need to know if the plan
is feasible; and the answer is most definitely yes.
Section 4: Solvency
Compelling Russia to enforce its end of the IPR agreement will improve the intellectual
property situation in Russia.
Solvency A) Improved Enforcement
The International Intellectual Property Alliance highlights the importance of this agreement
saying:
“The IPR Agreement was entered into in the context of Russia’s efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and it reflects Russia’s
acknowledgment of the numerous legal reforms and enforcement steps it needs to undertake 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. Russia’s full compliance with the IPR Agreement should be

Compliance with the IPR

considered in the Special 301 context, as well as during its review under the General System of Preferences (GSP) program.

Agreement will help to significantly reduce piracy, which harms all creators – [the] U.S. and
Russian alike – and should be appropriately reflected in Russia’s Special 301 status.”6

So we know that IPR enforcement is improved, But what are the benefits of IPRs in and of
themselves?
Section 5: Justifications
Justification 1: Economics
What makes this topic so important is that its effects are not merely domestic.
Point A) Multinational Devastation
Professors of law, Ahdieh, Ragavan and Francis along with attorneys at law, Lee and
Noonan collaborated to interpret the long terms effects of Russian piracy on the US and
found 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.”

7

And the Congressional Research Service estimated losses of “more than $2.8 billion in losses in
2008”8 alone.

Apart from the US however, IPRs have implications for Russia as well. The Coalition for
Intellectual Property Rights found that:
“Yet, Russia’s rampant counterfeiting and trademark violations are estimated to cost billions of

dollars annually in lost revenues to businesses operating in Russia, and to Russia’s federal

6
IIPA, Special 301 Report, 2010
7
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)
8
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. Interests” RL33407 (January 29, 2010) CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE <accessed July 23, 2010>
www.opencrs.com (EG)
Page 3 of 5
 Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard
and regional budgets it costs hundreds of millions of dollars each year in lost taxes, duties
and investment.”9

While improvement in IPR enforcement doesn’t necessarily immediately result in the

eradication of economic problems, enforcement is a long-term, ultimately positive
investment.
Point B) Long Term Economic Growth
David Hindman JD, highlights the advantages in 2007 saying:
“Strong IP rights encourage economic development in several ways: (1) by promoting domestic
innovation through protecting nascent technology; (2) by preventing “brain drain” (the loss of human resources) through
ensuring that innovators are rewarded for their efforts; and (3) by fostering technology
transfers such as FDI.80”10
As you can see, the economic implications of intellectual property are great, however,
Intellectual Property Rights reach far beyond the dollar into the realm of human life itself.
Justification 2: Global Health
Point A) Counterfeit Proliferation
A 2006 New York Times article explains Russia’s situation reporting:
“Russians, already adept at burning pirated DVD’s, rolling their own Marlboro cigarettes and
printing knockoff Nike T-shirts, have turned to the more delicate art of making fake
prescription medicine. Counterfeit prescription drugs are proliferating in Russia, and in many other
countries, according to industry experts and the (FDA) Food and Drug Administration.”
11

Unfortunately as has been extensively documented, counterfeiting is not a victimless

crime. In fact the damage caused by one counterfeit product should be enough to warrant
change.
Point B) Counterfeiting Kills
The US-Russia Experts Forum in 2007 documents that:
“Furthermore, counterfeit medicines and alcoholic beverages, which often contain deadly

chemicals, and counterfeit automobile and airplane parts, which can malfunction, have
created an unacceptable health and safety crisis in Russia. Over 30,000 Russians die each
year from drinking bootleg vodka.9”12

9
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 Russia’s
Economic Revival” 2010 <accessed July 12, 2010> http://www.cipr.org/activities/articles/RBWipr.pdf (EG)
10
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
ECONOMIES” ARIZONA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW Vol. 23, No. 2 (2006) pp. 467-492
<accessed June 17, 2010> (EG)
11
ANDREW E. KRAMER “Drug Piracy: A Wave of Counterfeit Medicines Washes Over Russia” September 5,
2006 NEW YORK TIMES <accessed June 16, 2010>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/business/worldbusiness/05fake.html (EG)
12
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 Law’s 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 Lectures”; Member in the
Executive Committee of the Russian Association of International Law and cofounder and attorney of the Board
Page 4 of 5
 Intellectual Property Rights FASD Elliot Grizzard
1AC Region IX Clark/Grizzard

It is only by enforcing IPRs that Russia can most effectively reduce domestic exposure to
harmful counterfeit products.
Point C) IPRs Solve
The International Intellectual Property Institute argues that:
�Citizens in countries with well-developed drug and consumer product safety regulations, border enforcement mechanisms and intellectual

property laws have a lower risk of exposure to and harm from counterfeit goods.”13

If Russia can enforce IPRs, they can provide an incentive not to engage in this dangerous
crime. My partner and I urge that the magnitude of the economic and humanitarian effects
of your decision warrants an affirmative vote.

of Lawyers “Etalon” 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 Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory] “The Fight
against Counterfeiting and Piracy: IP Enforcement in the Russian Federation” Policy Brief (November 2007) US
– RUSSIA EXPERTS FORUM <accessed July 12, 2010> http://s251835929.onlinehome.us/reports/IIPI%20Russia
%20Policy%20Paper%20-%20Reichelt_Gavrilov%20ENG.pdf (EG)
13
Michele Forzley, [JD, MPH. Michele Forzley is a US-based lawyer and a representative to a US Commerce
Department Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property] “COUNTERFEIT GOODS AND THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH
AND SAFETY” July 2003 International Intellectual Property Institute [EG] <accessed March 1, 2009>
http://www.iipi.org/reports/Counterfeit_Goods.pdf

Page 5 of 5