The author is a special counsel to the Electronic Border Foundation for Computer Science Visitors at Open University and the author of “Choose and Shovel”
(Former) What should the trading partners do? In Canada, Mexico and around the world, leaders are trying to come up with a response to Trump’s tariffs, and they all landed in the same location: If U.S. President Donald Trump tariffs on us, we will impose him. But the tariffs for selling Tate were geopolitics in the 19th century. In the 21st century, aggrieved foreign leaders have an exciting, digital counterattack that could have a devastating impact on the most profitable businesses of the United States.
This reversal could make the situation cheaper, while eliminating monopoly profits extracted by the most important companies in the United States, is to repeal a highly technical intellectual property law called "Resistance."
Resistance laws prohibit tampering with or bypassing software locks that control access to copyrighted works. The first of these laws is Section 1201 of the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. According to DMCA 1201, this is a felony (a sentence of five years in prison or a $500,000 fine) to provide someone with tools or information to obtain digital locks, even if there is no copyright violation.
Resistance to the law is the reason no one can sell you a “jailbreak” tool, so your printer can recognize and use cheaper universal ink cartridges. That's why farmers have not been able to repair their John Deere tractors until recently, and why people using powered wheelchairs cannot repair their vehicles and even require minor tweaks such as custom steering operations.
These laws are made in the United States, but they are one of the most successful exports in the United States. The U.S. Trade Representative lobbying - openly conducts treaty negotiations; secretly debates their intellectual property laws when foreign legislatures debate their intellectual property laws and when they formulate their own versions for U.S. trading partners.
Quid Pro Quo: Countries passing such laws can enter the U.S. market tax-free. Canada enacted the C-11 Act bill in 2012, after the ministers in charge of 6,138 oppositions dismissed the opposition with their "naive" view of being "radical extremists." Mexico issued a version in the summer of 2020 to fulfill its obligations under the United States-Mexico Agreement. It made such hashings, and the Supreme Court sparked a review.
I'm sure you'll see where this is. Why should every peso that Mexican iPhone owners pay Mexican app creators be traveling to and from California and then go home to 30 Centavos a breeze? Why accept people per 1000 rupees, someone pays on the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper in India,,,,, The paper is only 700 rupees? After all, if an Indian tech company sets up its own app store, it may charge a competition fee to attract all Apple's best Indian app maker customers.
Why can't every mechanic in the world provide the unit price of all subscription features and software upgrades for every Tesla model?
Better yet, since these are software products, there is no practical way to prevent Americans from buying them online from overseas. Without having to limit Canada to exporting affordable drugs, it can also incubate a large, profitable software industry that exports tools for technology self-determination to the U.S. public, the first victims of anti-fences.
American companies that have monopolized American companies have spent trillions of dollars in the first quarter of the century to withdraw trillions of dollars from consumers around the world, as they lobby to maintain anti-color paper laws to isolate competition. From printer ink to ventilator repairs, they have been able to pursue monopoly pricing and ensure that no one will undercut them with cheaper and/or better add-ons, markets, software, consumables and service products.
Both companies may claim that repealing the law increases the risk of third parties disrespectful consumer rights. However, they may respect these rights more. After all, the U.S. tech giants have hardly proven themselves to be too concerned about our privacy, labor or consumer rights.
Trump’s rapid, unplanned aerial dismantling is a one-time opportunity for countries around the world to become leaders of these sectors. During Nokia's 15 years as king, some countries there may have had the same relationship with Finnish mobile phones or payment processing.
It's fashionable for the tech company's "fast moving and destroying things" spirit. But of course, it depends on who is broken? To me, moving fast and breaking billionaires sounds like a wonderful idea – especially when the billionaire in question is the one who stands behind the inauguration of Trump’s inauguration.