唐纳德·特朗普总统8月14日签署总统备忘录，指示美国贸易代表调查中国“强制性转让美国技术和剽窃美国知识产权”。美国贸易代表罗伯特·莱特希泽随后根据1974年美国贸易法第301条款宣布对中国知识产权问题进行调查。

特朗普总统称这是“一大步”。确实是一大步，后退的一大步。

海湖庄园会晤以来，两国政府建立了包括针对知识产权问题在内的官方对话及工作层面的合作渠道。两国政府在知识产权保护方面的合作多年来收获颇丰。美国和中国都是WTO《知识产权协定》（TRIPS）及其他相关国际公约的签字国，特朗普政府本可以简单地将所有知识产权问题提交WTO解决。那么，单方面启动301调查所为何来？

301条款对中国不具司法权

301条款授权美国贸易代表调查美国企业是否在海外市场遭受不公平待遇，并在情况属实条件下采取行动。但它只是美国法律，不是中国法律或国际法。基于301条款的调查结果对中国企业采取任何行动，在中国都不具有司法权。另一方面，WTO有专门的《知识产权协定》，它对包括中美两国在内的所有成员都有约束力，涉及中美贸易的任何知识产权问题也都应由它管辖。WTO成员之间的任何知识产权纠纷都可以提交给WTO的争端解决机制。

除了对美国没有好处，美国贸易代表的301调查还将严重损害美国与中国的关系。调查前，美国贸易代表将寻求与中方进行磋商，但这不会是一场友好的对话，而是提出要挟，它将导致中国的不满。如果美国采取商业报复，中国一定会以牙还牙。无论如何，哪一方都不会得到好处。

不存在强迫性技术转移

有一种误解是，外国高科技公司在投资中国时被迫要把技术转让给中方合作伙伴。李克强总理和工信部部长苗圩对此已经予以否认。前商务部部长陈德铭表示，虽然中国在加入WTO之前曾强迫外国高科技公司转让技术，但在中国加入WTO之后这种做法已经被取消了。外国投资者可以自由地在中国设立研发中心，并且不需要为此转让他们的技术。

如果被迫转让情况属实，美国公司可以向中国政府提供证据，事情无疑会得到处理。

中国知识产权保护在进步

据美国商会全球知识产权中心的年度报告，中国的知识产权指数是42（满分100），在受调查的45个经济体中排在第27位。中国的得分落后于美国、英国、欧盟和日本，但远远领先许多发展中国家。报告指出，过去一年来，中国引入了知识产权保护新机制，设立了知识产权法院，这有助于打击知识产权侵权和盗版活动。

美国中国商会2015年的白皮书发现，只有22％的会员认为中国的知识产权保护令人满意，但是有82％的人称赞中国在知识产权保护方面的进步。在2017年的白皮书中，其会员对中国的五大关切是：对法规的解释不一、成本上涨、保护主义增加、缺少合格的管理、难以获得所需的许可证。而知识产权问题过去6年里从未进入过前五位。

这些结果表明，中国的知识产权保护虽然远远不够，但每年都有很大的进步。

通过WTO框架进行对话与合作

美国贸易代表不应继续推进301调查。相反，美中两国应该启动知识产权对话，使之成为基于WTO规则的双边对话机制的一部分。两国应携手达成友好的解决方案，而不是让商业上的紧张升级。

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.