6 ms·

While I completely agree that the US should aspire to hold the law in high regard, there is plenty of cases where it's disregarded against bad actors. Consider

While I completely agree that the US should aspire to hold the law in high regard, there is plenty of cases where it's disregarded against bad actors. Consider the sanctions against countries (Iran comes to mind at the moment) where that country is not allowed to pursue perfectly legal actions because of 3rd party pressure. Sanctions against China won't work though because their international political clout. But since much of the rare earth patents are probably needed for making defense systems, I think it can easily be set aside as a "national security", "self defense", etc... I am sure a savvy lawyer could come up with the argument.

mullingitover 7y ago
> But since much of the rare earth patents are probably needed for making defense systems, I think it can easily be set aside as a "national security", "self defense", etc... I am sure a savvy lawyer could come up with the argument. We can desire to violate the treaties to our hearts' content, but if we don't actually have the elements the patents are referencing we won't be able to violate any of the patents.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  Rare earth metals are _not_ uncommon, we have tons of them in the US, just not the processing capacity. Which is already starting to change.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    Indeed, but even for example with a wartime suspension of their patents, we would be cut off from supplies immediately and it could potentially take years for our domestic pipeline to start delivering. Without the wartime excuse I don't foresee it getting any better for the speed at which we can start mining (pretty sure it would take multiple acts of congress to allow for the environmental regs to be ignored), and if we start violating China's rare earth patents willy-nilly I don't picture them helping us with that by continuing to sell the raw materials to us.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      Sure, but until there's war, patents are just a business issue, not a catastrophic one. So there really is no issues here accept who makes more money.

mullingitover 7y ago

> But since much of the rare earth patents are probably needed for making defense systems, I think it can easily be set aside as a "national security", "self defense", etc... I am sure a savvy lawyer could come up with the argument. We can desire to violate the treaties to our hearts' content, but if we don't actually have the elements the patents are referencing we won't be able to violate any of the patents.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
Rare earth metals are _not_ uncommon, we have tons of them in the US, just not the processing capacity. Which is already starting to change.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  Indeed, but even for example with a wartime suspension of their patents, we would be cut off from supplies immediately and it could potentially take years for our domestic pipeline to start delivering. Without the wartime excuse I don't foresee it getting any better for the speed at which we can start mining (pretty sure it would take multiple acts of congress to allow for the environmental regs to be ignored), and if we start violating China's rare earth patents willy-nilly I don't picture them helping us with that by continuing to sell the raw materials to us.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    Sure, but until there's war, patents are just a business issue, not a catastrophic one. So there really is no issues here accept who makes more money.