唐納德·特朗普總統8月14日簽署總統備忘錄，指示美國貿易代表調查中國“強制性轉讓美國技術和剽竊美國知識產權”。美國貿易代表羅伯特·萊特希澤隨後根據1974年美國貿易法第301條款宣布對中國知識產權問題進行調查。

特朗普總統稱這是“一大步”。確實是一大步，後退的一大步。

海湖莊園會晤以來，兩國政府建立了包括針對知識產權問題在內的官方對話及工作層面的合作渠道。兩國政府在知識產權保護方面的合作多年來收穫頗豐。美國和中國都是WTO《知識產權協定》（TRIPS）及其他相關國際公約的簽字國，特朗普政府本可以簡單地將所有知識產權問題提交WTO解決。那麼，單方面啟動301調查所為何來？

301條款對中國不具司法權

301條款授權美國貿易代表調查美國企業是否在海外市場遭受不公平待遇，並在情況屬實條件下採取行動。但它只是美國法律，不是中國法律或國際法。基於301條款的調查結果對中國企業採取任何行動，在中國都不具有司法權。另一方面，WTO有專門的《知識產權協定》，它對包括中美兩國在內的所有成員都有約束力，涉及中美貿易的任何知識產權問題也都應由它管轄。WTO成員之間的任何知識產權糾紛都可以提交給WTO的爭端解決機制。

除了對美國沒有好處，美國貿易代表的301調查還將嚴重損害美國與中國的關係。調查前，美國貿易代表將尋求與中方進行磋商，但這不會是一場友好的對話，而是提出要挾，它將導致中國的不滿。如果美國採取商業報復，中國一定會以牙還牙。無論如何，哪一方都不會得到好處。

不存在強迫性技術轉移

有一種誤解是，外國高科技公司在投資中國時被迫要把技術轉讓給中方合作夥伴。李克強總理和工信部部長苗圩對此已經予以否認。前商務部部長陳德銘表示，雖然中國在加入WTO之前曾強迫外國高科技公司轉讓技術，但在中國加入WTO之後這種做法已經被取消了。外國投資者可以自由地在中國設立研發中心，並且不需要為此轉讓他們的技術。

如果被迫轉讓情況屬實，美國公司可以向中國政府提供證據，事情無疑會得到處理。

中國知識產權保護在進步

據美國商會全球知識產權中心的年度報告，中國的知識產權指數是42（滿分100），在受調查的45個經濟體中排在第27位。中國的得分落後於美國、英國、歐盟和日本，但遠遠領先許多發展中國家。報告指出，過去一年來，中國引入了知識產權保護新機制，設立了知識產權法院，這有助於打擊知識產權侵權和盜版活動。

美國中國商會2015年的白皮書發現，只有22％的會員認為中國的知識產權保護令人滿意，但是有82％的人稱讚中國在知識產權保護方面的進步。在2017年的白皮書中，其會員對中國的五大關切是：對法規的解釋不一、成本上漲、保護主義增加、缺少合格的管理、難以獲得所需的許可證。而知識產權問題過去6年里從未進入過前五位。

這些結果表明，中國的知識產權保護雖然遠遠不夠，但每年都有很大的進步。

通過WTO框架進行對話與合作

美國貿易代表不應繼續推進301調查。相反，美中兩國應該啟動知識產權對話，使之成為基於WTO規則的雙邊對話機制的一部分。兩國應攜手達成友好的解決方案，而不是讓商業上的緊張升級。

President Donald Trump issued a presidential memo on August 14, directing the US Trade Representative (USTR) to examine China's “forced transfer of American technologies and theft of American intellectual property (IP).” Robert Lighthizer, the USTR, subsequently announced an investigation into IP issues relating to China under Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974.

“A very big move”, President Trump called it. It is indeed a big move – backwards.

Since the Mar-a-Largo summit, both governments have set up official channels for dialogues and working level cooperation, including on IP issues. The bilateral government cooperation on IP protection has been fruitful for many years. Both the US and China are signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the WTO and other relevant international conventions. The Trump administration could simply refer any IP issue to the WTO for resolution. What is the point of unilateral action under Section 301?

Section 301 has no jurisdiction over China

Section 301 authorizes the USTR to investigate if an American business has suffered unfair treatment in overseas markets, and to take action if it has. However, it is only American law, not Chinese or international law. Any actions on Chinese companies based on Section 301 findings will have no jurisdiction in China. On the other hand, the WTO has a special agreement on IP, TRIPs, which binds all WTO members including the US and China. Any IP issues involving China-US trade should be governed by TRIPS. IP disputes between WTO members can be referred to the WTO Dispute Settlements Mechanism.

In addition to doing no good for America, the USTR's investigation under Section 301 will severely harm its relations with China. The USTR will seek consultation with China before the investigation. However, this will not be a friendly dialogue, but a request backed by a threat, which will create resentment in China. If there is any commercial retaliation from the US, China will definitely retaliate in return. In any event, there will be no benefit to either side.

There are no forced technology transfers

It is a misunderstanding that high-tech foreign companies are forced to transfer technology to Chinese partners when investing in China. This has been denied both by Premier Li Keqiang and Minister Miao Wei of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Chen Demin, former Minister of Commerce, said that, whilst China forced high-tech foreign companies to transfer technology before joining the WTO, this was scrapped after its WTO accession. Foreign investors are free to set up R&D centers in China, and don't need to transfer their technology to do so.

If a case of forced transfer is identified, the US company could provide evidence to the Chinese government. There is no doubt the matter would be dealt with.

China IP protection in progress

According to the US Chamber of Commerce's Global IP Center's annual report China's IP index was 42 out of 100, ranking China 27th out of the 45 economies surveyed. China's score was behind that of the US, UK, EU, and Japan, but far ahead of many developing countries. The report noted that over the past year, China has introduced new mechanisms for IP protection and set up IP courts, which helps the fight against IP infringement and piracy.

The American Chamber of Commerce in China, found in its 2015 white paper that only 22% of members thought China's IP protection satisfactory. However, 82% of them praised China's progress in IP protection. In its 2017 white paper, the top five concerns of its members with regard to China were: inconsistent regulatory interpretation, rising costs, increasing protectionism, shortage of qualified management, and difficulty in obtaining required licenses. IP issues have not been among the top five concerns over the past six years.

Those findings show that China's IP protection, though far from adequate, has been making great progress each year.

Dialogue and collaboration through WTO framework

The USTR should not proceed with the Section 301 investigation. Instead, the US and China should initiate an IP dialogue, as part of the bilateral dialogue mechanism based on WTO rules. Instead of escalating commercial tensions, both countries should come together to reach an amicable solution.