Page:Special 301 Report 2014.pdf/17

  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 codes, 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. 

Trade secret theft can be viewed as a form of forced technology transfer that foreign actors may use to undermine U.S. competitive advantage. Foreign governments may also adopt trade-distortive policies, which are sometimes designed to promote "indigenous innovation" by forcing U.S. companies to transfer their technology or other valuable commercial information. Examples of these policies, include, but are not limited to:

 Requiring the transfer of technology as a condition for obtaining regulatory approvals or otherwise securing access to a market, or for allowing a company to continue to do business in the market;

Directing state-owned enterprises in innovative sectors to seek non-commercial terms from their foreign business partners, including with respect to the acquisition and use or licensing of IPR;

Failing to effectively enforce IPR, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights, thereby allowing national firms to gain a competitive advantage over their foreign competitors through misappropriation or infringement of the competitor's IPR;

<li>Failing to take meaningful measures to prevent or deter cyber intrusions and other unauthorized activities;</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 national firms, including with respect to the terms on which IPR is licensed; and</li>

<li>Requiring the submission of excessive (and often unnecessary) confidential business information for regulatory approval purposes, and failing to appropriately protect such information from unfair commercial use by, and disclosure to, third parties.</li> </ul> 17