Piracy, Prejudice, and Perspectives: An Attempt to Use Shakespeare to Reconfigure the U.S.-China Intellectual Property Debate
Peter K. Yu
Texas A&M University School of Law
Cardozo Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 38
Since the mid-1980s, the U.S.-China intellectual property conflict has entered into the public debate. It was frequently debated in Congress and was widely covered by the mass media. Despite the importance of this issue, the debate thus far has been one-sided, focusing primarily on the unfair competition aspect. While there are undeniably some greedy Chinese who are eager to free ride on the creative efforts of Western authors and inventors, greed alone cannot explain the century-old U.S.-China intellectual property conflict. To understand the roots of this conflict, one must focus on the significant political, social, economic and cultural differences between China and the West. Unless the Chinese government introduces reforms that are sensitive to these differences, the piracy problem will continue. Indeed, the problem will exacerbate as the Chinese economy grows.
To help skew the debate back to its correct perspective, this Article articulates the various differences between China and the West and explains how these differences have contributed to the failure of the United States's repeated conversion attempts. The Article also highlights the undesirability for and ineffectiveness of forced conversion by juxtaposing the piracy problem with one of Shakespeare's legal masterpieces, The Merchant of Venice. By comparing China's experience in the international intellectual property community to Shylock's predicament in the play, this Article seeks to challenge the readers' cultural presumptions and invites readers to step outside their own world to rethink the U.S.-China intellectual property conflict. The Article concludes that Shakespeare's teachings in the play may provide insights into how policymakers can resolve, or at least minimize, this century-old conflict.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 57
Date posted: March 29, 2001
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.172 seconds