Bill Overview
Title: Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022
Description: This bill imposes sanctions on certain foreign individuals and entities involved in the theft of trade secrets belonging to a U.S. individual or entity. The President shall periodically report a list of foreign individuals and entities that have knowingly engaged in, benefited from, or assisted in the significant theft of U.S. trade secrets that materially contributed to a significant threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or economic health. The report shall also list foreign individuals who are chief executive officers or board members of any foreign entity engaging in such theft. The President shall impose (1) property- and visa-blocking sanctions on individuals named in the report; and (2) property- or export-blocking sanctions, including denial of certain financial assistance, on entities named in the report.
Sponsors: Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: Foreign individuals and entities involved in or benefiting from theft of U.S. trade secrets
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill targets foreign individuals and entities involved in the theft of U.S. trade secrets.
- Sanctions will affect foreign individuals who are directly involved in the theft or who are executives of entities engaging in theft.
- The economic activities of sanctioned entities will be directly impacted.
- U.S. companies whose intellectual property has been stolen may see indirect benefits from such sanctions.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts foreign actors and indirectly helps U.S. companies by protecting their trade secrets.
- The economic benefits for U.S. companies could result in improved profitability and job stability or growth, influencing wellbeing indirectly.
- Given the focus on foreign entities, the direct impact on individual U.S. citizens will vary but is mostly indirect.
- Some individuals, particularly those in affected industries or companies benefiting from protected intellectual property, may perceive a higher sense of security or job stability.
- The policy's budget constraints limit its immediate widespread direct impact, particularly on U.S. citizens; effects are more diffuse across industries.
- Overall, better protection of U.S. trade secrets can foster economic confidence, leading to potential long-term positive wellbeing outcomes.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Silicon Valley, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good step towards securing our tech innovations.
- The protection act might deter future theft, which is crucial for job security in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Lobbyist for the tech industry (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we have some real consequences for these bad actors.
- This could improve competitiveness for U.S. companies globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could stabilize the tech market, which is good for investments.
- There might be an indirect benefit through stock performance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Entrepreneur (Austin, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act makes me feel a bit more at ease about our IP.
- It’s a good move, though I'm skeptical about enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good policy for protecting innovation, but impact on my work is minimal.
- Happy to see stronger IP laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Patent Attorney (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sanctions are a strong deterrent — a necessary measure.
- Clients will appreciate the added level of protection, likely boosting business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Venture Capitalist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase confidence in investments by protecting IP.
- Strategically, it's a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The impact will be mainly felt in the corporate sector.
- Academically, this can be a case study for future policy effectiveness evaluations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Film Producer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see actions against those stealing our creative content.
- The film industry is evolving with laws like this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
CEO of a mid-sized manufacturing firm (Houston, TX)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is crucial for safeguarding manufacturing secrets.
- This policy could level the playing field a bit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $125000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $170000000)
Year 10: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- International diplomatic ramifications of imposing sanctions on foreign entities.
- Potential retaliation by foreign governments against U.S. businesses.
- Compliance and enforcement challenges associated with international legal frameworks.
- Balancing effectiveness of sanctions with international trade relations.