Digital control to Trump’s tariff

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The writer is a special adviser to FRONTIERE Electronic, Professor of Computer Science visiting at Open University and author of “Picks and Drains”

What is the (previous) commercial partner? In Canada, Mexico and all over the world, leaders are trying to formulate a response to Trump’s tariff as they all land in the same place: If US President Donald Trump introduces us, they will be exposed to him. But the tariff versus Tat is geographical geographical things in the nineteenth century. Here in the twenty -first century, foreign leaders affected by an exciting digital interview can have a devastating effect on the most profitable business lines in the most profitable companies in America.

Countermove, which can make things cheaper while removing monopolistic profits extracted by the most economically important companies in the United States, is to cancel a very technical intellectual property law called “anti -circuit”.

The anti -mobilization laws prohibit mobilization with or bypassing programs that control access to copyright works. The first of these laws was Article 1201 of the Copyright Law for the American Digital Millennium, which Bill Clinton signed in 1998. According to DMCA 1201, it is a felony (punishable by a five -year prison sentence or a fine of $ 500,000) to provide a person with a tool or information about the digital lock, even if the copyright is not violated.

Anti -circuit laws are the reason that no one can sell you a “broken protection” tool so that your printer is able to identify and use the cheapest ink cartridges. For this reason, farmers have not been able to repair their John Derry tractors until recently and why people who use energy -powered wheelchairs cannot fix their cars, even to slight adjustments such as allocating steering treatment.

These laws were placed in the United States, but they are among the most successful exports of America. The American Trade Representative – publicly pressed in the treaty negotiations; Safi, foreign legislative bodies have discussed their IP laws – for trade partners in America for their own publications.

The Quid Pro Quo: The countries that approved these laws obtained access to American markets. Canada enacted its law to combat the circle, Bill C-11, in 2012, after the responsible ministers rejected 6,138 opposition comments on the basis that they were “the child” of “extremist extremists”. Mexico was enacted in the summer of 2020 to fulfill its obligations under the United States and Mexico-Canada agreement. This retail made that the Supreme Court led to a review.

I am confident that you see where this is going. Why should all Peso pay the Mexican owner of the Mexican applications to a Mexican applications that make a round and forth trip through California and return home with lighter weight? Why do you accept this for every 1000 rupees? Someone pushes someone in the application to the Indian newspaper Denkand The paper gets only 700 rupees? After all, if an Indian technical company manufactures its application store, it may receive competitive fees that entice all Apple Indian Tapker customers in Apple.

And why should not every mechanic in the world provide insurance from one prices for all subscription features and program promotions for each Tesla model?

Better, since these software products, there is no practical way to prevent Americans from buying them online from abroad. Canada does not need to limit itself in exporting affordable drugs, and it can embrace a large and profitable software sector that issues the tools for the technological fate of the American public, the first victim to combat the department.

American monopolistic companies spent the first quarter of this century in extracting trillion dollars from consumers all over the world, isolated from competition through the laws of fighting the circle they are pressing. From the ink of the printer to ventilation repairs, they managed to follow the pricing of monopoly, and believed that no one will undermine it with cheaper and/better additions, markets, programs, consumer materials and service offers.

Companies may claim that the abolition of laws raises the risk of not respecting consumer rights. But they can be more respectful of these rights. After all, the American technology giants barely showed themselves interested in excessively privacy, work or consumer rights.

Trump’s rapid dismantling of the global commercial system is one time for the world to establish themselves as leaders in these sectors. Some countries can have the same relationship with application stores or payment processing that Finland had mobile phones in 15 years when Nokia was king.

Familiar technology companies are wrong for their spirit of “moving quickly and breaking things.” But this certainly depends on who is broken? It seems to me to move quickly and break the things of billionaires as a great idea for me – especially when the concerned billionaires are the same men who stood behind Trump on the opening Des.