Page:Special 301 Report 2013.pdf/15

 companies to gain an unfair economic advantage by harming U.S. innovation and creativity, including:

 Focusing diplomatic efforts to protect trade secrets overseas, which include sustained and coordinated engagement with trading partners, the use of trade policy tools (including through the use of the Special 301 Report), cooperation, and training, among others;

Promoting voluntary best practices by private industry to protect trade secrets, including information security, physical security, and human resources policies;

Enhancing domestic law enforcement operations, especially through the activities of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of InvestigationsFederal Bureau of Investigation [sic], Department of Defense, and the National IPR Coordination Center;

Improving domestic legislation to protect against trade secret theft, as exemplified by the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012, which clarified provisions in the Economic Espionage Act with respect to the theft of trade secret source code, and the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012, which increased criminal penalties for economic espionage; and

Conducting public awareness campaigns and stakeholder outreach to encourage all stakeholders to be aware of the dangers of trade secret theft. 

The threat of trade secret theft is not the only way that foreign actors may seek to undermine U.S. commercial advantages. In addition to protecting against theft of trade secrets, the United States continues to urge trading partners to reject trade-distortive policies, which are sometimes designed to promote "indigenous innovation" by forcing U.S. companies to hand over valuable commercial information. These policies include:

 Requiring the transfer of technology as a condition for allowing access to a market, or for allowing a company to continue to do business in the market.

<li>Directing state-owned enterprises in innovative sectors to seek non-commercial terms from their foreign business partners, including with respect to the acquisition and licensing of IPR.</li>

<li>Failing to effectively enforce IPR, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights, thereby allowing firms to gain competitive advantages from their misappropriation or infringement of another's IPR.</li>

<li>Failing to take meaningful measures to prevent or deter cyber intrusions.</li>

<li>Requiring use of, or providing preferences to, products or services in which IPR is either developed or owned locally, including with respect to government procurement.</li>

<li>Manipulating the standards development process to create unfair advantages for domestic firms, including with respect to the terms on which IPR is licensed.</li> </ul> 14