5 ms·

Is there a term for regulatory capture of bodies that aren't really regulatory? This seems a lot like the result of elected folks leaning on the FBI/DOJ about i

Is there a term for regulatory capture of bodies that aren't really regulatory? This seems a lot like the result of elected folks leaning on the FBI/DOJ about issues that are important to campaign donors. The extreme measures being taken to try to stop something that is impossible to prevent feels like a stunt, like posturing. As the article mentions, the genetic information is available to anyone driving down a road in Iowa or Illinois. The intellectual property paranoia focused on seed engineering companies feels very similar to the domestic patent legislation/litigation discussions of the past decade or so.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Ultimately, you're right. But they can slow it down, and they can make a lot of money in the years in between. And even patents only give you 20 years. After that, it's free to anyone, world wide.
rayiner 11y ago
Calling this "regulatory capture" eviscerates the meaning of the term. Enforcing laws important to rich corporations/people? Yeah, but that's the history of the world. And here, its a no-brainer for the DOJ/FBI to go after this. It does Americans, not the rich or the poor not anyone, any good if the Chinese can use the fruits of our agricultural R&D for free. The fact that it's easy to violate the patent rights of these agricultural companies is neither here nor there. I can drive over to Ted Turner's land in Montana and pitch a tent, and it'd probably be weeks before anybody noticed. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to eject trespassers from his land. Ultimately, the U.S. has to ask itself a very hard question re: China. Do we want to be in a race to the bottom with them, or do we want to use whatever competitive advantages we have? The Chinese can grow corn as easily as we can. They can't genetically engineer corn like we do, unless they copy our technology. In the long run they'll get the technology--it's inevitable. But its in our self-interest to put that off as long as possible.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  > It does Americans, not the rich or the poor not anyone, any good if the Chinese can use the fruits of our agricultural R&D for free. It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this claim. > I can drive over to Ted Turner's land in Montana and pitch a tent, and it'd probably be weeks before anybody noticed. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to eject trespassers from his land. We do have Squatter's Rights, but those usually take most of a decade to kick in. Do you think the laws around GM should have longer statutes of limitations? > The Chinese can grow corn as easily as we can. They have more of all of the same resources as we do - land, raw genetic material (crops), smart people, research facilities. But they apparently can't innovate. Why not? We should look to protect our innovative abilities, more than we protect their products.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    > It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this claim. The DOJ and FBI don't exist for the benefit of humanity. The American government is (and should be) solely concerned with advancing the welfare of Americans. Anything else would be an egregious violation of the social contract. > We should look to protect our innovative abilities, more than we protect their products. It's inevitable that China will develop the same ability to innovate as us. R&D success is ultimately a function of money and time. But in the meantime, they don't need to develop or ability to innovate if they can simply copy the results of our innovative process as we make them.
    - sampo 11y ago
      > The American government is (and should be) solely concerned with advancing the welfare of Americans. Opinions might divide on this one, but a case can be made that it would advance the welfare of Americans if the rest of the world didn't see Americans as total a-holes.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this claim. Like all trade, if the Chinese feel they can benefit from the fruits of foreign technology they're welcome to it. But not for free.
- dangerlibrary 11y ago
  Just to clarify, I didn't call it "regulatory capture". I asked for a term that fits better. Your suggestion of "the history of the world" cuts open that term's torso and spills its entrails onto the street. ("eviscerates"? really? that was unnecessary.) On a more substantive point, it's absolutely not a "no-brainer" for the FBI and DOJ to be using FISA court surveillance laws to prevent this. Even if they capture 9/10 of the people sent to gather seeds, which is generous, then it would only take a few dozen plane tickets and rental cars for Chinese corporations to steal all the information they need. Getting a few example cases into the courts so that we have high-profile proof is useful for state-level negotiation, maybe, but it's not going to prevent the theft.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

Ultimately, you're right. But they can slow it down, and they can make a lot of money in the years in between. And even patents only give you 20 years. After that, it's free to anyone, world wide.

rayiner 11y ago

Calling this "regulatory capture" eviscerates the meaning of the term. Enforcing laws important to rich corporations/people? Yeah, but that's the history of the world. And here, its a no-brainer for the DOJ/FBI to go after this. It does Americans, not the rich or the poor not anyone, any good if the Chinese can use the fruits of our agricultural R&D for free. The fact that it's easy to violate the patent rights of these agricultural companies is neither here nor there. I can drive over to Ted Turner's land in Montana and pitch a tent, and it'd probably be weeks before anybody noticed. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to eject trespassers from his land. Ultimately, the U.S. has to ask itself a very hard question re: China. Do we want to be in a race to the bottom with them, or do we want to use whatever competitive advantages we have? The Chinese can grow corn as easily as we can. They can't genetically engineer corn like we do, unless they copy our technology. In the long run they'll get the technology--it's inevitable. But its in our self-interest to put that off as long as possible.

stephengillie 11y ago
> It does Americans, not the rich or the poor not anyone, any good if the Chinese can use the fruits of our agricultural R&D for free. It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this claim. > I can drive over to Ted Turner's land in Montana and pitch a tent, and it'd probably be weeks before anybody noticed. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to eject trespassers from his land. We do have Squatter's Rights, but those usually take most of a decade to kick in. Do you think the laws around GM should have longer statutes of limitations? > The Chinese can grow corn as easily as we can. They have more of all of the same resources as we do - land, raw genetic material (crops), smart people, research facilities. But they apparently can't innovate. Why not? We should look to protect our innovative abilities, more than we protect their products.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this claim. The DOJ and FBI don't exist for the benefit of humanity. The American government is (and should be) solely concerned with advancing the welfare of Americans. Anything else would be an egregious violation of the social contract. > We should look to protect our innovative abilities, more than we protect their products. It's inevitable that China will develop the same ability to innovate as us. R&D success is ultimately a function of money and time. But in the meantime, they don't need to develop or ability to innovate if they can simply copy the results of our innovative process as we make them.
  - sampo 11y ago
    > The American government is (and should be) solely concerned with advancing the welfare of Americans. Opinions might divide on this one, but a case can be made that it would advance the welfare of Americans if the rest of the world didn't see Americans as total a-holes.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >It does the Chinese a bit of good. Arguably, it's bad for some residents of the USA but humanity probably benefits overall. I have no sources for this claim. Like all trade, if the Chinese feel they can benefit from the fruits of foreign technology they're welcome to it. But not for free.
dangerlibrary 11y ago
Just to clarify, I didn't call it "regulatory capture". I asked for a term that fits better. Your suggestion of "the history of the world" cuts open that term's torso and spills its entrails onto the street. ("eviscerates"? really? that was unnecessary.) On a more substantive point, it's absolutely not a "no-brainer" for the FBI and DOJ to be using FISA court surveillance laws to prevent this. Even if they capture 9/10 of the people sent to gather seeds, which is generous, then it would only take a few dozen plane tickets and rental cars for Chinese corporations to steal all the information they need. Getting a few example cases into the courts so that we have high-profile proof is useful for state-level negotiation, maybe, but it's not going to prevent the theft.