Bill Overview
Title: ECON Act
Description: This bill addresses economic issues in foreign relations and intellectual property (IP) infringement. The bill expands the criminal offense of trade secrets theft to include the unauthorized modifying or developing of a product in a way that would not be possible without another party's trade secret. This offense shall apply to non-U.S. conduct if the offender attempts to import the product into the United States. Furthermore, the President may impose sanctions against a foreign person (individual or entity) that has committed a significant theft of IP belonging to a U.S. person. The President must also establish or designate a multiagency committee to (1) review petitions alleging such acts of IP theft, and (2) recommend whether to impose sanctions for the alleged theft. The bill also prohibits foreign state-owned entities in international commerce from engaging in predatory pricing, defined in the bill as setting prices for a good below the average variable cost in a manner that may foreseeably harm competition. An injured party may sue in federal court. In deciding such cases, the court may consider the economic support and government subsidies provided by the entity's foreign state owner. Furthermore, the Department of State must establish a pilot program to create economic defense response teams to provide targeted support for countries facing an urgent or specific coercive economic threat from a U.S. adversary. The State Department must establish another pilot program to assist developing partner countries with identifying trade barriers and facilitating trade.
Sponsors: Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals and entities involved in international trade and intellectual property sectors
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The ECON Act targets international economic relations, specifically dealing with foreign trade practices and intellectual property (IP) protections.
- The inclusion of provisions targeting foreign entities and non-U.S. conduct suggests a primary focus on international economic actors that engage with U.S. markets.
- The bill impacts individuals, companies, and state-owned enterprises involved in international trade, IP-intensive industries, and foreign entities that may be at risk of accusations of IP theft.
- As the bill includes potential sanctions on foreign individuals or entities, it suggests that it targets a broad range of international actors doing business or wanting to do business with the U.S.
- The pilot programs aim to support foreign governments, implying the involvement of economic stakeholders in developing countries.
Reasoning
- This policy directly impacts entities involved in international trade and the protection of U.S. intellectual property. As such, the key American targets include companies in tech and manufacturing sectors that rely on IP protection and are susceptible to foreign theft.
- The policy aims to deter IP theft and unfair trade practices, thereby benefiting companies that own important IP and possibly leading to increased market stability for them.
- The act could result in legal and administrative costs for those dealing with IP-related lawsuits or sanctions, involving legal professionals in their workforce.
- State-owned enterprises engaged in predatory pricing globally would have to adjust strategies to comply, impacting the cost structure of products in the U.S.
- The establishment of economic defense teams and pilot programs indicates targeted support for developing countries, requiring stakeholder engagement from those regions—indicating a secondary layer of impact beyond direct U.S. business effects.
- Given the budget limits, interventions are likely focused and prioritize sectors where U.S. interests in IP and trade are most threatened.
Simulated Interviews
Intellectual Property Lawyer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely increase demand for my services as companies will seek legal advice on navigating these new regulations.
- It may create a more stable environment for tech companies in the U.S. to thrive without fear of IP theft.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Tech Entrepreneur (New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act provides peace of mind and potentially more protection for my company's patents.
- I hope it will deter foreign competitors from stealing or undercutting with unfair pricing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Arizona)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could lead to increased stability in my portfolio holdings that rely on IP protection.
- However, there's a risk that some companies might suffer under the tightened regulations, affecting stock performance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
International Trade Analyst (Massachusetts)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could provide new opportunities for trade advisory services as companies will need guidance on these new regulations.
- The additional complexity in international trade could, however, burden smaller businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
CEO of a Manufacturing Company (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act could level the playing field by targeting unfair pricing by foreign competitors.
- Legal and compliance costs might increase, but if it deters predatory practices, it's worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Illinois)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy might protect larger tech companies, small businesses like mine could be squeezed by the compliance burden.
- I'm hopeful it will help protect my IP from foreign exploiters, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Economics Professor (Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ECON Act is an intriguing approach to tackling global trade issues, possibly setting a new standard for IP protection.
- Its impact on global trade dynamics might spawn additional research opportunities and teaching content for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Non-profit Manager (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to strengthen IP rights protection which aligns with our advocacy goals.
- However, I worry about the resources required for enforcing these measures effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Ohio)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ECON Act may protect my company's IP abroad, potentially safeguarding my job.
- The enforcement aspect however, might influence foreign office dynamics negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Economist (Michigan)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could shift economic power balance slightly towards the U.S. in trade negotiations.
- It should provide extensive material for economic analysis and research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among multiple government agencies will be essential to effectively implement the sanctions and prosecutorial measures outlined in the bill.
- International diplomatic relations might be strained due to imposed sanctions and potential interactions with foreign trade partners.
- The efficacy of the pilot programs will depend on robust collaboration with international partners and effective allocation of resources for high-impact areas.