Blog

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” –Thomas Jefferson

Conservatives get off track on issues like privacy when they lose sight of the fact that government’s first priority is NOT to protect Americans’ security, but is rather to protect Americans’ freedom. If you assume that government’s first job is to protect national security, you are already on the thinnest end of the wedge that eventually leads to a surveillance state, which is simply the last bus stop just before a police state. Our system, including the justice system, by design correctly values freedom over security anytime the two come into conflict, which as it turns out is pretty often.

So public horror at the disclosure of widespread data collection on the activities of ordinary Americans by the National Security Agency is entirely warranted. People realize that, while there is always going to be a tension between security and privacy, discovering that the federal government is building massive databases of our phone communication, Internet activity, credit card transactions and God knows what else suggests that the government has crossed the line and is prioritizing security over freedom.

We've just gotten word that the next hearing in the Judiary Commitee's series of hearings on copyright review has been scheduled for next Thursday, July 25, at 9:30 am in 2141 Rayburn. The theme of this hearing is "Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights."

A good theme. In fact, that would have been a pretty good theme for the FIRST hearing in this series, instead of the near waste-of-time topic that occupied the first hearing. But I've already ranted about that . . . 

While the House Judiciary Committee is certainly busy with a raft of issues these days, sooner or later they will continue to hold hearings about the copyright system in the U.S., considering how it works in an age of rapidly advancing technology, business models, an ever growing pool of content and new means to access that content.

This week marks the initial negotiating session for the new Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement, which is a new free trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. And IPI will be there.

Like most trade agreements, the goals include lowering tariffs, but because the E.U. countries are for the most part advanced economies, there will be more focus on technical regulations, standards and certifications—all designed to make it easier to sell and ship goods between the U.S. and the E.U.

There’s nearly a $trillion per year in trade between the U.S. and the E.U., but the barriers are such that both sides of the agreement think there are $billions in savings to be achieved by lowering tariffs and otherwise making it easier to do business across the pond.

Reporters and legal commentators shout from the roof-tops when landmark rulings stop everything and change the world. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court did them one better in Shelby County v. Holder—it issued a landmark ruling that recognized that it was time to stop something because the world had changed.

Liberals think they can slow Medicare spending by imposing price controls on drugs. Of course, 30 years of Medicare price controls haven't controlled spending yet.

On May 15, IPI convened a panel to discuss software patents, to discuss the criticism that the U.S. patent system has recently attracted, and to address whether that criticism is warranted. The goal was to explore a couple basic questions, such as can any of the existing challenges be addressed by creating a stronger system overall? If there are "trolls," then to what extent are they enabled by software patents? Is software best protected under copyright as an expression, or under patent as an invention? Why are there more software patents now? And how do we address the challenges while protecting US innovation? What role should patents be playing in protecting software? Why do they play a role at all? Doesn't copyright protect software adequately?

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has taken a lot of heat for asking--some would say shaking down--health insurance executives for money to help implement ObamaCare. So it has changed the messenger, but not the message.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has today vetoed SB 346, the bill sponsored by a couple of RINO Republicans that supposedly was designed to increase transparency in Texas elections, but really was designed to punish Texans for Fiscal Responsibility for holding Republicans accountable for their RINO ways.

Here is an article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram about the veto, and here is a blog by Empower Texans on the veto.

And earlier this week the Wall Street Journal editorialized about SB 346 here.

This legislation was, as I said, designed to punish a single group that has held Republicans accountable. If you doubt my characterization, then tell me why the legislation specifically exempts labor unions and organizations related to labor unions from the new requirement.

I pointed this out Thursday morning on the Mark Davis Show, and the audio of my interview goes into some more detail about what all is wrong with the bill. I think Mark was fairly neutral on the legislation until he heard the blockbuster about labor unions being exempt.

As most U.S. farmers shifted, over the last decade, to Monsanto’s genetically modified corn seed that had its own pest-fighting toxins that would take on the rootworm, they abandoned the use of most soil insecticides.  However, over the years the rootworm has become increasingly immune to the seed-based pesticide and the insects are making a comeback, killing lots of corn in the process. There are least a couple of public policy lessons to be learned.

A Washington Post op-ed today serves as a great follow up to my last post about the Special 301 report, as it describes the danger of the theft of U.S. intellectual property (IP). Put another way, the Special 301 report identifies countries that are a particular problem when it comes to protecting U.S. IP sold, or otherwise provided, into that country.

The op-ed makes clear what happens when our IP is stolen it also makes clear something else -- what happens if there were no longer IP protections in the U.S.? Just read the piece and extend and broaden the impact resulting from piracy. What are those results? More jobs would be lost, even more wealth would be transferred from the U.S. to other countries such as China, loss of the U.S. competitive edge and a long term economic decline, and a loss of our military protections.

Senate investigators have accused Apple Inc. of parking at least $74 billion overseas, which allowed the company to avoid paying some $30 billion in taxes between 2009 and 2012.  While the charges accuse Apple of using a complex system of offshore entities, no one is alleging Apple did anything illegal.  The primary complaint seems to be that Apple, which paid about $6 billion in taxes in 2012, isn’t paying more.

Excuse us for not being impressed by the hypocrites’ complaints.  Every member of Congress attacking Apple does his or her best to take advantage of all tax breaks they can reasonably claim.  As do all of the reporters and pundits writing about Apple, and the various media organizations that publish them.

Earlier this month, the USTR released this year's Special 301 report. The report is prepared and released annually, identifying trade barriers to U.S. companies doing business in another country because of a lack of "adequate and effective" intellectual property laws, that is, laws, or the lack thereof, that result in inappropriate protection for intellectual property rights.

As a general proposition, this year's report was no surprise.  The list of violators, of those who need to step up their efforts (to say the least), is fairly predictable.

China: "USTR reports grave concerns about misappropriation of trade secrets in China, and incremental progress on a few of China’s many other significant IPR and market access challenges"

Former Russia state, Ukraine: "USTR designates Ukraine a Priority Foreign Country (PFC) under the Special 301 statute due to severe deterioration of enforcement in the areas of government use of pirated software and piracy over the Internet, as well as denial of fair and equitable market access through the authorization and operation of copyright collecting societies"

There has been a huge problem over the past few years with municipalities dragging their feet on approving permits to allow cell phone towers to be constructed, or even to allow new transmitters to be added to existing towers or to buildings.

Municipalities have been doing this on purpose, largely at the urging of consultants, who suggest the delays at least in part as a way to extract concessions from the wireless companies. It’s been a big problem, with municipalities complaining to the wireless companies about poor service coverage and then at the same time unnecessarily delaying permits to address the problem.

IPI has written about this problem several times, and one of the solutions we suggested was that municipalities should be put on a shot clock and given only a limited amount of time that they could delay such applications.

Which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did.

Upon which action the City of Arlington, Texas, which is just about 30 miles from where I sit, challenged the regulation, claiming that the FCC didn’t have the authority to regulate how they approved applications for cellphone towers.

The simplest observation about the Benghazi emails is that the Obama administration spent a lot more time discussing how they were going to spin the situation than they did deciding whether or not to try to save American lives under attack by terrorists.

The evidence thus far suggests that the Obama administration decided almost immediately to stand down and not send in forces to try to support the embassy under attack. And there has to be more there, since as of yet we've not been able to get a clear answer to who, exactly, was in the situation room that night and who made the decision. One person who clearly DOES know the answer, General Carter Ham, mysteriously decided to retire just a few years before his mandatory retirement date, and 18 months into a 3 year rotation.

Another military official who would have knowledge of the episode, Admiral Charles M. Gauoette, was also removed by the Pentagon around the same time.

I think we all want to hear more from General Ham and Admiral Gauoette. I think the decision process that led to our abandoning Americans in Benghazi is more important, or at least logically precedes, the cover-up scandal.

Meanwhile, the administration spent four days and twelve drafts deciding how they were going to spin Benghazi.

Covering their own tails was clearly a greater concern that covering the lives in Benghazi for which they were responsible.