U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–207 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–771

COUNTERFEITING AND THEFT OF TANGIBLE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: CHALLENGES AND

SOLUTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 23, 2004

Serial No. J–108–62

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 19

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 124

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 140

Leahy, Hon. Partick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 2

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 142

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

WITNESSES 

Buckles, Brad, Executive Vice President for Antipiracy, Recording Industry 

of Association of America, Washington, D.C. ..................................................... 26

Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C. .............................................................................. 22

Dudas, Hon W., Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and Acting Director, Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C. . 5

Mendenhall, James, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual 

Property, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, D.C. ............ 9

Price, Vanessa, Intellectual Property Specialist, Burton Snowboards, Burlington, Vermont .................................................................................................. 27

Trainer, Timothy P., President, International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, 

Inc., Washington, D.C. ......................................................................................... 29

Wayne, Earl Anthony, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business 

Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C. ............................................... 12

Willard, Richard K., Senior Vice President and General Counsel, the Gillette 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts ....................................................................... 24

Wray, Christopher A., Assistant General, Criminal Division, Department of 

Justice, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................... 7

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Brad Buckles to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ............... 41

Responses of Jon W. Dudas to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .............. 43

Responses of James Mendenhall to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ...... 49

Responses of Vanessa Price to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .............. 51

Responses of Timothy P. Trainer to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ..... 53

Responses of Earl Anthony Wayne to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .. 80

Responses of Richard K. Willard to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ...... 92

Responses of Christopher A. Wray to questions submitted by Senator Leahy .. 95

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Buckles, Brad, Executive Vice President for Antipiracy, Recording Industry 

of Association of America, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ................. 117

Donohue, Thomas J., President and Chief Executive Officer, Chamber of 

Commerce, Washington, D.C., prepared statement .......................................... 126

Dudas, Hon W., Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and Acting Director, Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 135

Page

IV

Mendenhall, James, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual 

Property, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ................................................................................................... 145

Price, Vanessa, Intellectual Property Specialist, Burton Snowboards, Burlington, Vermont, prepared statement ............................................................... 154

Trainer, Timothy P., President, International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, 

Inc., Washington, D.C., prepared statement ...................................................... 157

Vargo, Franklin J., Vice President, International Economic Policy, Washington, D.C., prepared statement and attachments .......................................... 164

Wayne, Earl Anthony, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business 

Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ............ 184

Willard, Richard K., Senior Vice President and General Counsel, the Gillette 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts, prepared statement ................................... 196

Wray, Christopher A., Assistant General, Criminal Division, Department of 

Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ................................................ 201

(1)

COUNTERFEITING AND THEFT OF TANGIBLE 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: CHALLENGES 

AND SOLUTIONS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in Room 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Specter, Leahy, and Biden. 

Senator SPECTER. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The 

hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary will now proceed. Senator Hatch, the Chairman, has asked me to preside. Senator Hatch 

is recovering from back surgery from last week, but he is on the 

premises today, but is taking it just a little easier. 

The first question I want to address today is one which is on 

many minds in this room, and that is what happened to me. I was 

walking down Market Street in Philadelphia, the 200 block, after 

dinner on Saturday night, and I tripped on a defect in the sidewalk, and customarily there is a reflex action to put your hands 

out. Well, I did not do that, and the first contact was my nose and 

the cement. And I am pleased to report that I am fine, although 

bruised, and the cement is cracked. [Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I am glad you made 

the explanation because I know that it sometimes gets contentious 

in the Judiciary Committee, and I did not want anybody thinking, 

insofar as Senator Specter and I have been friends for more than 

a quarter of a century, I did not want the wrong impression to be 

here. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Leahy and I have had no tough moments in the 24 years I have been here. He has been here 6 years 

longer. Our paths first crossed at a National District Attorneys Association meeting in Philadelphia, when he was the district attorney of Burlington, Vermont, and I was the DA of Philadelphia. In 

those days, we had important jobs. 

That is a laugh line. 

[Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Today, we are going to proceed with our hearing on intellectual property theft and counterfeiting, a subject of 

really great importance in the United States today and growing. A 

2

broad range of American industries are affected, including pharmaceuticals, automotive, music, movies, software and virtually every 

type of consumer product. There are enormous lost corporate revenues and profits, lost tax revenues, lost American jobs in the hundreds of thousands and a genuine threat to public safety from 

counterfeit drugs, foods, airplane and car parks. 

The International Chamber of Commerce estimates that some 

$350 billion a year in counterfeit goods are sold worldwide. The 

automobile industry loses $12 billion a year, software another $12 

billion, movies $3.5-, and in the music industry between $4- and $5 

billion in losses and, globally, 2 in 5 recordings are pirated. There 

is a real public safety threat, and perhaps surprising to some, there 

are links to terrorism. 

During a House International Relations Committee hearing last 

summer, the secretary general of Interpol testified that intellectual 

property crime is ‘‘becoming the preferred method of funding for a 

number of terrorist groups.’’ It has been reported that the captured 

al Qaeda terrorist training manuals revealed the organization recommends the sale of counterfeit goods as a means to support terrorist operations and reports that Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the 

blind Egyptian cleric linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, relied upon counterfeiting to fund his operation. 

So this is an issue of enormous importance, and we have assembled a very distinguished panel of witnesses from all branches of 

the Federal Government and then from many branches of the private sector to make an in-depth analysis here to find out what is 

being done and what the Congress can do further to try to deal 

with this enormous problem. 

I am delighted now to yield to my good friend and colleague, the 

Ranking Member of this Committee, Senator Pat Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Senator Hatch for agreeing to hold this hearing. Both of you 

have had a long interest in this type of counterfeiting. We have 

spent a lot of time in recent years focusing on the many problems 

of intangible piracy, and that is what it is, piracy, particularly the 

theft of copyrighted works on the Internet, but I am pleased the 

Committee will also address the problems of tangible piracy: 

knockoff goods that violate the rights that are in trademarks, patents and copyrights, and then deprive the owners of the fruits of 

their efforts and investments, and often present consumers with 

very shoddy knockoffs. 

Several years ago, Senator Hatch joined me in sponsoring the 

Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act from 1996. That law 

addressed this problem. It amended a number of our criminal and 

tariff codes. The law made important changes, particularly by expanding RICO, the Federal antiracketeering law, to cover crimes 

involving counterfeiting, and copyright and trademark infringement. Even with that, more enforcement is needed in light of these 

practices that involve the theft of goods based on intellectual property rights. 

3

Then, as now, trafficking in counterfeit goods hurts purchasers, 

State and Federal Governments, and economies at every single 

level. Indeed, this form of theft has become a method of choice for 

organized crime syndicates, as Chairman Specter pointed out, terrorist organizations—they do it for profit, to launder money to fund 

their criminal activities. I think Mr. Wray would agree, if we were 

in a closed-door hearing, and we could discuss that at even greater 

length, as he knows. 

Just last year, I joined with Senator Allen in sponsoring an amendment to the foreign operations bill for 2004. It provides $2.5 

million to the State Department in order to establish programs 

that will help developing Nations protect intellectual property 

rights—theirs and ours. These programs will strengthen intellectual property laws, educate and train law enforcement officers, and 

they will help our Customs officials to combat trafficking. It is 

going to give flexibility to the people who actually combat piracy 

in the field. So, Mr. Wayne, I am going to be very interested in 

knowing how this is being implemented at the State Department, 

and what other steps we might take. 

We ought to remember that consumers feel the effects of counterfeit goods when they think they are buying a ‘‘brand name,’’ spend 

the money to buy a brand name, and end up with a shoddy imitation instead. We are going to be hearing today from Vanessa Price 

of Burton Snowboards—back in my home State—who will bring 

home the kind of damage this does. I am very disturbed by the 

story she is going to tell, but I am glad she is here. Burton is a 

small company. Through a lot of work, a lot of trial and error, a 

lot of innovation, it has become the industry leader in 

snowboarding equipment and apparel, but you can find knockoff 

products labeled ‘‘Burton’’ all over the world. And this theft and 

free-riding on the reputation of such a creative company threatens 

to undermine the efforts of years of hardworking Vermonters. 

I see similar stories all of the time in my office. SB Electronics 

in Barre, Vermont, has a niche area of capacitors, brilliantly put 

together, but now they see them reverse engineered, and its customers lost worldwide to inferior copycat models. Vermont Tubbs, 

a furniture manufacturer in Rutland, has seen its designs copied 

and then produced offshore with inferior craftsmanship and materials and then reimported to undermine their own sales. 

Hubbardton Forge in Castleton, Vermont, makes beautiful and 

very original lamps—again, a niche market—but they are being 

counterfeited, and then they are sold within the United States, 

with a lesser quality and at prices that undercut their own. 

And some of the stuff being taken is amazing. At trade shows, 

cameras are prohibited. Well, at one trade show, a competitor—a 

competitor—hired the night cleaning crew to take pictures of showcased furniture, so then they could make knockoffs. 

Of course, in some cases, these counterfeit goods pose a significant public health risk. According to the International 

AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, counterfeit parts have been discovered in helicopters sold to NATO, in jet engines—think about that 

the next time you get on a plane—bridge joints, and fasteners in 

equipment designed to prevent a nuclear meltdown. We all know 

about the stories of counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs. 

4

What does it cost us? Three hundred and fifty billion dollars a 

year. That constitutes between 5 and 7 percent of world trade. 

Again, think about that in this country, when we have a $500-billion trade deficit this year alone. We are the world leader in intellectual property. So, if there are knockoffs, American companies 

suffer a disproportionate amount. In 2002, the movie industry lost 

$3.5 billion in pirated videos. To put that in perspective, that is a 

60-percent jump from 1997. In a study examining the impact on 

trademarks, researchers for the International Trademark Association estimated that trademark holders worldwide lost $2 billion in 

1995 as a result of this policy. 

The Business Software Alliance estimates that pirated software 

alone cost the U.S. economy 118,000 jobs and $5.7 billion in lost 

wages in the year 2000. In my little State of Vermont, we lost 

$15.3 million in retail sales of software in 2002. That is 267 fewer 

jobs. Of course, it is lost revenues to our State, and that is just 

from computer software. You can go all the way down. 

So think of what we have here—counterfeit and pirated music, 

software, T-shirts, clothing, fake drugs—and then think also of terrorist organizations using that money. There are thousands of reasons, thousands of reasons to work harder to end the trafficking 

and counterfeit goods: thousands of jobs lost, consumers harmed, 

trademarks and patents infringed, businesses threatened, and illegal enterprises enriched. 

We all understand drug trafficking, international drug trafficking. We all understand arms trafficking. This is something we 

better start understanding because it is hurting us at every single 

level, including our personal and national security. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. It is extraordinarily important. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much. 

We now turn to our distinguished panel. The rule of the Judiciary Committee is 5 minutes on opening statements. 

I might comment about recent memorial services for Ambassador 

Walter Annenberg in Philadelphia. We had a very distinguished 

array of speakers, including former President Ford, and Secretary 

of State Colin Powell, and I was there, Governor Rendell, and the 

limit was 3 minutes of speech. So I want you to understand that 

5 minutes is a very generous allocation based on that analogy. 

We now turn to our first witness, who is Acting Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Jon Dudas, who has been in 

this position since early this year. Last week, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Mr. Dudas for the appointment 

of Under Secretary of Commence for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 

Before his current responsibilities, he served as council to the 

Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property for the House 

Committee on the Judiciary for 6 years. So he is well-versed in Judiciary Committee hearings. 

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Dudas, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

5

STATEMENT OF JON W. DUDAS, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY 

OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. DUDAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Leahy, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the problem of intellectual property theft and the 

Department of Commerce’s role in protecting intellectual property 

here and abroad. I want to begin by commending you and the Committee for holding today’s hearing. Your longstanding commitment 

to protecting U.S. intellectual property and your consistent support 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office are tremendously important. 

Secretary Evans is keenly aware of the increasing significance of 

intellectual property protections for American businesses and 

innovators and has made combatting counterfeiting and piracy a 

top priority for the entire Department. As acting Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Intellectual Property, I am dedicated to marshalling U.S. Government efforts to reduce the toll that IP theft takes 

on American IP owners and American consumers. Far too many 

jobs are lost and far too many companies are hurt because of intellectual property theft. 

More and more, intellectual property is a key driver of economic 

growth. For example, the U.S. copyright industry continues to lead 

the economy in their contributions to job growth, GDP, and exports. Between 1977 and 2001, their share of GDP grew more than 

twice as fast as the rest of economy. These same companies depend 

upon their brands and trademarks to compete effectively in the 

marketplace. Unfortunately, the economic benefits of capitalizing 

on intellectual property rights have captured the attention of pirates, organized crime, and as you mentioned, in some limited, but 

increasing, cases, terrorists. The Secretary General of Interpol testified last year, again, that IP crime is becoming the preferred 

method of funding for a number of terrorist groups. 

The illegal duplication of software, music, DVDs and other 

digitized information and the trafficking in counterfeit products is 

widespread. In China, an estimated 90 percent of business software, valued at $1.5 billion, is pirated. In Russia, the bulk of video 

and audiotapes are counterfeit. Because of this piracy, the U.S. 

software industry has lost billions of dollars in 2002 alone. Global 

trademark counterfeiting totals about $500 billion a year. Counterfeit automotive parts production alone costs the auto industry $12 

billion a year. Commonly prescribed drugs, such as Lipitor and 

Viagra, are increasingly counterfeited, posing health risks to consumers. 

Given these threats, the USPTO and our colleagues in the Department of Commerce are working hard to curb intellectual property crime and strengthen intellectual property enforcement in 

every corner of the globe. Through our Offices of International Relations and Enforcement, the USPTO works to ensure that American IP owners have sufficient legal tools to fight piracy. We provide technical assistance and training to foreign entities on implementing and enforcing effective intellectual property laws. We also 

serve as co-chair of the National Intellectual Property Law EnforceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:21 Feb 07, 2005 Jkt 098207 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98207.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
6

ment Coordination Council, which coordinates domestic and international intellectual property law enforcement here in the U.S. 

The focus of USPTO’s efforts are: one, addressing the difficulties 

Governments face in meeting international intellectual property obligations; and, two, bringing together local authorities to address 

enforcement issues. 

For example, we help countries establish adequate enforcement 

mechanisms to meet their obligations under the WTO TRIPs 

Agreement. The TRIPs Agreement sets minimum standards of protection for IP and requires WTO members to provide for effective 

enforcement of intellectual property rights. In negotiations on Free 

Trade Agreements, we push for a ‘‘TRIPs-Plus’’ format that expands the minimum standards that are set out in TRIPs. 

China, as the Committee is well aware, is a major concern on intellectual property piracy. Last fall, Secretary Evans led a mission 

to China and highlighted China’s lack of intellectual property enforcement. The Secretary met with high-ranking Chinese officials 

and reiterated that effective IP protection requires that criminal 

penalties and fines be large enough to serve as a deterrent rather 

than a mere business expense. 

As a follow-up to the Secretary’s trip, the USPTO recently led a 

delegation to China for consultations with senior Chinese officials 

and U.S. companies operating on the ground in China. A primary 

focus of this trip was to further the administration’s goals of reducing widespread counterfeiting and piracy. Many industries have 

noted that the Chinese Government, by restricting market access 

for certain products, is providing free reign for counterfeiters, pirates and criminals to exploit the void created by the lack of legitimate products. 

Given these trends, we are continuing to press hard for enhanced 

steps by the Chinese Government to significantly reduce the extent 

of intellectual property violations. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Leahy, the demands on the Department of Commerce and the USPTO’s expertise in combatting 

IP piracy have grown dramatically in the last few years. I am hopeful that with the continued support of this Committee, and in partnership with the Congress, we will be able to do even more to provide American businesses and entrepreneurs with the IP protection 

they need and deserve. 

Clearly, in terms of the economy and national security, much is 

at stake. That is why our dedicated team of experts will continue 

to work tirelessly to protect American products in every corner of 

the globe. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dudas appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary Dudas. 

We turn now to the assistant general for the Department’s 

Criminal Justice Division, Christopher Wray. Over the past years, 

the Division has developed an institute of the joint initiative with 

the FBI and U.S. Customs to combat piracy and counterfeiting. 

Before General Wray was appointed to his current position, he 

served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia and 

7

was the director of a special task force investigating Enron Corporation. 

Thank you for coming in today, General Wray, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WRAY. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today, 

and this is an extremely important topic, and I commend you, Mr. 

Chairman and Senator Leahy, for holding this hearing. My full 

written statement has been submitted to the Committee, so I will 

just summarize briefly here. 

We are, I think it is clear, at a pivotal time in the history of intellectual property rights enforcement. A number of factors have 

come together to create unprecedented challenges to intellectual 

property rights holders and to law enforcement. The Internet and 

technology have made piracy and counterfeiting easier and less expensive than ever before. 

At the same time, the quality of the illicit goods is often near 

perfect. Detecting these illegal operations is more difficult than in 

the past and is compounded by sporadic and inconsistent enforcement throughout the world. Piracy and counterfeiting are often 

deemed low-risk, high-reward endeavors that are beginning, not 

surprisingly, to attract organized crime syndicates throughout the 

world. 

The harm caused by these criminals is real. Businesses cannot 

survive in an environment where black-market goods are more 

available and cheaper than legitimate goods. Small businesses, as 

Senator Leahy noted, are forced to close and bigger businesses 

must downsize. 

Piracy also deprives consumers of their important right to be assured that the products they buy are safe and legitimate. Since the 

beginning of his tenure, Attorney General Ashcroft has worked to 

ensure that the Department has the prosecutorial resources necessary to fight intellectual property crime. 

With the assistance of Congress, he has expanded the number of 

Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units—what we call 

our CHIP Units—operating nationwide from just 1 to 13. These 

specialized units consist of dedicated Federal prosecutors whose 

primary focus is prosecuting high-tech crimes, including intellectual property crimes. The CHIP Units complement the already existing network of over 200 specially trained Computer and Telecommunications Coordinators—or CTCs—that now serve in every 

U.S. Attorney’s Office across the country. Like the CHIP Units, the 

CTCs also focus on the prosecution of high-tech crimes, again, including intellectual property crimes. 

Working closely with the CHIP Units and the CTC network is 

our Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property 

Section, also known as CCIPS. And, again with the support of Congress, the size of CCIPS has increased significantly over the past 

2 years, allowing us to substantially enhance our intellectual property enforcement efforts. CCIPS is developing and implementing a 

focused and aggressive long-term plan to combat intellectual propVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:21 Feb 07, 2005 Jkt 098207 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98207.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
8

erty crime. So, working in concert, CCIPS, the CTCs and the CHIP 

Units create a formidable, multi-pronged approach to prosecuting 

intellectual property crimes. 

As my written testimony highlights, our efforts are having an impact. We have successfully prosecuted piracy and counterfeiting 

cases that are resulting in significant penalties. Recently, for example, in the Eastern District of Virginia, a man received 70 months 

in prison and was ordered to pay $1.7 million in restitution for 

trafficking in high-quality Microsoft products. And last year in 

South Carolina another defendant was sentenced to 7 years in prison and ordered to pay over $3.4 million in restitution to Nike and 

Tommy Hilfiger for trafficking in thousands of counterfeit T-shirts 

and other products and engaging in money laundering. 

These are significant prison terms that send the clear message 

that counterfeiting is no longer a consequence-free enterprise. Such 

severity is essential, for the damage from intellectual property offenses can go beyond lost sales and cut right at the heart of public 

health and safety. For example, we have successfully prosecuted a 

number of individuals for selling counterfeit baby formula, as well 

as a man in Alabama for selling misbranded pesticides, intended 

to stop West Nile Virus, to municipalities all across the Southern 

United States. 

Counterfeit products, such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides and 

food products not only deprive consumers of their right to safe and 

legitimate products, but they threaten society’s most vulnerable 

members, including our children and those who are ill or injured. 

We are actively exploring additional ways in which we can increase 

the use of criminal trademark and counterfeit labeling laws to help 

protect the health and safety of our citizens. 

Our efforts do not stop at our borders, however. Piracy and counterfeiting are global crimes that ignore geographic boundaries. The 

Department is committed to working with our foreign law enforcement colleagues to improve international IP enforcement. For example, later this month, a Ukrainian man is scheduled to be extradited to the United States from Thailand to face prosecution for his 

piracy and counterfeiting activities involving the online sale of over 

$3 million in counterfeit software. The Department is also in the 

process of seeking the extradition of a man from Australia for his 

leadership role in an international piracy conspiracy. 

We are working closely with law enforcement from around the 

globe to identify and assist in the prosecution of IP criminals in 

their native lands, and this will become increasingly important in 

the years ahead, as we are seeing an increasing emergence, particularly in Asia, of organized crime involvement in IP crime. Organized crime has the resources and distribution methods to operate 

sophisticated counterfeiting operations. These groups do not hesitate to threaten or injure anyone, ranging from industry representatives to Government officials who attempt to interfere with their 

illegal operations. 

Information from overseas indicates that it is not uncommon for 

enforcement raids on illicit factories to degenerate into full-blown 

shootouts. There is no doubt that these worldwide criminal syndicates are formidable foes and that we must be just as formidable 

in our response to truly attack the problem of hard goods intellecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:21 Feb 07, 2005 Jkt 098207 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98207.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
9

tual property piracy. Effective IP enforcement must be global, and 

we are working daily to set standards in international cooperation. 

In closing, I want to reaffirm the Department’s commitment to 

combatting IP crime aggressively, both domestically and overseas. 

In the prosecutions that we have undertaken, and those that lie 

ahead, we will continue to send a strong message to those engaged 

in piracy and counterfeiting that their conduct will not be consequence free. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wray appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, General Wray. Your full 

statement will be made a part of the record, as will all of the statements. 

We now turn to Assistant United States Trade Representative 

James Mendenhall, who handles the services, investment and intellectual property in the Office of Trade Representative. Prior to his 

current duties, he served as deputy general counsel to the trade 

representative and has a very extensive career in private practice, 

concentrating on international trade law. 

Thank you for coming in today, Representative Mendenhall, and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES MENDENHALL, ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OFFICE 

OF THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Biden. 

The theft of intellectual property worldwide is an enormous and 

growing problem. U.S. industry losses due to piracy and counterfeiting are conservatively estimated to be around $200- to $250 billion a year. As a result of this criminal activity, many foreign markets are simply evaporating. In China and Russia, industry estimates that piracy levels in many sectors are close to or exceed 90 

percent of the market. 

USTR and other agencies are working around the clock to resolve 

this problem, a problem made complex not only by its sheer scale, 

but by multiple underlying causes. I will outline four key challenges facing the United States in this area and five tools that we 

have brought to bear on the issue. 

First, pirates and counterfeiters exploit technological advances 

and employ modern business models to streamline and expand 

their operations. Sophisticated copying technology is now available 

off the shelf, and pirates have been quick to put it to illicit use. For 

example, CD and DVD burners enable pirates to churn out thousands of illegitimate copies of music, software and movies without 

significant investment in equipment and facilities. 

Pirates have also become globalized. If they are shut down in one 

country, they simply move to the next. They run global production 

and distribution chains, exporting their illicit goods and displacing 

legitimate products from markets around the world. 

We have begun our counteroffensive on this front, for example, 

through the development of new enforcement rules in our Trade 

Agreements, as I will explain later. 

10

Second, the unshackling of markets and economies, such as 

China and Russia, present tremendous opportunities, but unfortunately not always for the good. Criminal enterprises, including 

small operators and sophisticated organized crime syndicates, are 

growing up side-by-side with legitimate business operations. Yet 

these countries have failed to provide adequate means and incentives to prosecute criminal offenders in all cases or to deter future 

criminal activity. The solution to this problem runs much deeper 

than the protection of intellectual property and requires the creation of a legal system and culture built on the rule of law. 

A third challenge is the creation of international legal rules to 

deal with enforcement. Enforcement is perhaps the chief complaint 

that we hear today from our IP-intensive industries. Yet enforcement obligations, by their nature, are not as black and white as 

other obligations in that it is difficult to determine, for examine, 

whether a country has in place effective deterrent remedies to prevent IPR infringement. We have tackled this issue head on in our 

FTAs, which contain extensive provisions designed to strengthen 

IPR enforcement. 

The final challenge is to rebut the skeptics in other countries 

who question the value of intellectual property rights. Obviously, 

the infringement of intellectual property rights has deep adverse 

impacts on our economy and on our industries, but it is more than 

that. For example, trademarks are not simply names and symbols, 

but measures of quality, trustworthiness and the value of a product. IPR protection promotes consumer protection and safety. 

Trademark infringement can result not only in the counterfeiting 

of handbags and shoes, but can lure unwary consumers into purchasing defective windshields that shatter on impact. We have all 

heard the horrible stories, such as counterfeit pharmaceuticals 

filled with paint or baby shampoo filled with industrial solvents. 

IPR protection also promotes development. As long as local artists cannot make a living in their home markets because of rampant piracy, local talent will remain undeveloped. Patent and copyright infringement can cause the flight of investment out of a country, thereby curbing development of a local technological base. 

Now, the complexity of this problem calls for a comprehensive, 

multi-faceted solution, and USTR and other agencies have employed all tools at our disposal to deal with the problem, and we 

will continue to do so. 

First, we require that our Free Trade Agreement partners bring 

their IPR regimes up to world-class standards. Our FTAs contain 

provisions dealing with a whole range of IPR, including such issues 

as curbing the use of equipment used to circumvent 

anticounterfeiting technology and dealing with sector-specific problems, such as optical disk or broadcast piracy. They also facilitate 

the bringing of cases and strengthen domestic criminal and civil 

enforcement measures. 

Second, the USTR annually issues the Special 301 Report, which 

catalogues the IPR problems in dozens of countries around the 

world and places them in a hierarchy of wrongdoing, ranging from 

the lowest-ranking of ‘‘Watch List’’ to the ranking reserved for the 

worst offenders, a ‘‘Priority Foreign Country.’’ 

11

As a result of this exercise, countries come forward each year 

with reforms and reform proposals to avoid elevation on the list. 

In the most serious cases, countries identified as Priority Foreign 

Countries can be subjected to a Section 301 investigation and face 

the possible threat of trade sanctions. We used the threat of trade 

sanctions in the mid 1990’s to win an IPR agreement with China, 

and we have more recently imposed Section 301 sanctions on the 

Ukraine. 

Third, USTR is the lead agency, working closely with other agencies, in addressing IPR issues multilaterally through the WTO. The 

initiation of dispute settlement proceedings is the most forceful expression in the WTO of dissatisfaction with a country’s IPR protection and can be an effective way to achieve reform. In nearly all 

cases that USTR has initiated, U.S. concerns were addressed via 

changes in laws and regulations by the other party. We also regularly review countries’ IPR laws and practices through the WTO 

Trade Policy Review mechanism and in the TRIPs Council. 

Fourth, USTR administers the Generalized System of Preferences program and other similar programs which allow us to 

withhold tariff preferences if a country fails to adequately protect 

IPR. The ‘‘carrot’’ of preserving tariff preferences is an effective incentive for countries to protect intellectual property rights. 

Finally, USTR, the State Department, the Department of Commerce and others have used diplomatic pressure to encourage IPR 

reform around the world. For example, Ambassador Zoellick has repeatedly emphasized the importance of this issue with the Chinese 

Government, and Deputy USTR Josette Sheeran Shiner has had 

multiple visits to China in the past few months alone to deal with 

this matter. In the coming days, she will return to China to prepare for the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade 

meeting next month, where IPR will be high on the agenda. 

Dealing with the problem of piracy and counterfeiting requires a 

comprehensive, intensive and sustained effort. Ambassador Zoellick 

is strongly committed to continuing to bring all of USTR’s weapons 

to bear on this issue and to maintain the pressure in the coming 

years. We have made progress, but enormous challenges remain, 

and I look forward to working with you and your staffs to continue 

to devise solutions for dealing with this critical matter. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mendenhall appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Mendenhall. 

Our next witness is assistant secretary of State for Economic and 

Business Affairs, Earl Anthony Wayne. Mr. Wayne has had a distinguished career in international trade and foreign service. He 

had been first secretary to the embassy in Paris, a very extensive 

background in Western European Affairs at the National Security 

Council. 

We thank you for joining us, Secretary Wayne, and the floor is 

yours. 

12

STATEMENT OF EARL ANTHONY WAYNE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS, 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Biden. It is a pleasure to be here to talk about this important set 

of problems. 

In the State Department’s Economic and Business Affairs Bureau, we have a mission statement on the wall, and one of the top 

priorities in that statement reads: ‘‘Increase market access for U.S. 

goods and services, protect intellectual property and promote global 

information and technology communications.’’ 

So I would like to talk a little bit today, complementing my colleagues, on three interrelated activities that we are undertaking to 

try to put this statement into action, working with our missions 

around the world. That involves three types of building: building 

knowledge, building capacity and building will. 

By building knowledge, I am talking about the need to increase 

awareness of intellectual property rights. That starts at home. It 

starts in the training. When new foreign service officers come in to 

the Department of State, in their introductory courses, they now 

learn about pharmaceutical data protection, about optical disk piracy, about counterfeit Levi jeans, about the problems this poses 

for American businesses. That training now continues for economic 

and commercial officers, for deputy chiefs of mission, for ambassadors. We have built this in to drive home how important these 

issues are for America’s prosperity. 

Of course, an even greater problem is building that understanding overseas, where sometimes the perception is that, ‘‘gee, 

IPR, that only benefits big American companies. It does not really 

concern us in this country.’’ But we are trying to use all of the diplomatic tools that we have in our tool chest to get the message out, 

from bilateral meetings, sending foreign journalists to the U.S. to 

understand the issues better, sending academic experts overseas to 

talk with people, using digital video conferences to bring people together and to get our ambassadors and economic counselors out on 

the stump and really explaining this to all sorts of audiences, from 

academics and officials to students overseas, so they start understanding how important these things are. 

Attached to my written testimony, I have included an op-ed that 

our ambassador to Russia, Sandy Vershbow, wrote last year specifically tailored to the Russian cultural heritage and how a lot of this 

cultural heritage was being lost, and their artists were not being 

able to build on this because of the piracy and counterfeiting that 

was going on and how a lot of the Russian intellect in software and 

other things just could not be profitable because they had so much 

piracy and counterfeiting. Those are the kind of things our embassies around the world are doing to build understanding. 

The second, key front is building capacity. At home, we are working to use the Internet much more effectively ourselves, to connect 

with our embassies, and to put embassies in touch with each other 

when they are facing similar problems around the world. We are 

bringing officers together to talk about best practices. We are having a conference in Brussels next month, where we are bringing officers from all over Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, so 

13

we can learn together with officials from Washington, what are the 

best arguments, what are the best practices, how can we be more 

effective overseas? 

Now, the other kind of capacity building is helping developing 

and transitional economies. That is where the funding that Senator 

Leahy mentioned earlier is so important as we try to really build 

the chain that is so key between judges and prosecutors and Customs officials and cops on the street, so really we can fight this 

problem overseas. We know from our own experiences, one weak 

link can make that a flawed process, and there are a lot of weak 

links in these developing economies and transitional economies We 

are trying to use the means that we have to address that challenge. 

We have a number of coordinating efforts to make sure that we 

work with industry, with other agencies to find the best kind of 

programs to go forward, to use the funds that we have available 

for training well. And we very much appreciate the congressionally 

appropriated money for this, which will be very, very helpful in 

this effort. 

Finally, building will. Often building will is a key part of what 

we are doing, maybe even the most important part. This is the will 

in foreign capitals to really take action. As my colleagues have 

mentioned, we use a lot of different tools in this process—bilateral 

meetings, for example. The Secretary of State, my boss, the Under 

Secretary of State, our ambassadors around the world and I are 

complementing what our colleagues in the U.S. Government are 

doing on a regular basis. We see this as a very important part of 

our foreign policy portfolio. 

All of the trade negotiations that are going on constitute another 

tool. USTR is in the lead in that effort, but it is often our missions 

overseas that are, on a daily and weekly basis, reinforcing that 

message from USTR and working very closely with them to reach 

out to try to build the coalitions in those local Governments that 

really understand why this is in their interests. 

And that is similarly true in the 301 process—often very important to get the attention of countries overseas, as we are moving 

forward, to really address the problems that they have. And, as 

Jim Mendenhall mentioned, when other methods do not work, we 

do consider imposing sanctions, using the Special 301, the Generalized System of Preferences or going to the WTO in certain cases. 

We do not pretend to have all of the answers to this, Mr. Chairman, but we do know that we need to keep working hard on these 

three aspects: knowledge, capacity and will. We also know this has 

to be a team effort. It has to be a team effort within the U.S. Government. It has to be a team effort with industry and, Senators, 

with you and your colleagues in going forward. When you all pay 

attention to these issues, when you speak out on your foreign trips 

and communicate with your foreign colleagues, it does have a big 

impact. We very much appreciate your attention and interest in 

this and look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wayne appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Secretary Wayne. 

We are going to now go to questioning of the panel, and we are 

going to establish a 7-minute limit. We have another panel of 5 disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:21 Feb 07, 2005 Jkt 098207 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98207.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
14

tinguished witnesses, so we are going to be running late, in any 

event. And we are uncertain as to whether there are going to be 

votes later this afternoon, but when you get near the 4 o’clock 

range, you are in jeopardy of votes. And once they start, it is pretty 

hard to keep people waiting a long time and to come back. So I appreciate your staying within the time limits, generally. 

As I hear your testimony, I see a breakdown which I would specify: Actions against Nations, number one; individual violators, number two; organized crime, number three; and terrorists, number 

four. 

General Wray, you have stated an impressive list of prosecutions 

by the Department of Justice. What is your evaluation of the sufficiency and deterrent quality of those prosecutions? Stated differently, is the message getting across? Do you have sufficient resources to bring enough prosecutions to let the violators, the pirates know that they are subject to tough prosecutions to have a 

deterrent effect on would-be violators? 

Mr. WRAY. Senator, I—Mr. Chairman, I should say—I would 

think that there— 

Senator SPECTER. Senator is okay. 

Mr. WRAY. I would answer on a couple of fronts. On the success 

I think we are having, in terms of getting the message out, we are 

trying to focus our cases primarily on the biggest organizations, the 

most sophisticated ones, the ones that we think are having the 

greatest and most harmful impact. 

Senator SPECTER. Are you sending some of them to jail of that 

size? 

Mr. WRAY. We are. We are sending individual defendants to jail. 

One of the things— 

Senator SPECTER. What is the longest sentence you have got? 

Mr. WRAY. I think that is— 

Senator SPECTER. Pardon me if I get down to nitty-gritties, as a 

former prosecutor. 

Mr. WRAY. The longest one that I know of, off the top of my 

head, is the 7-year sentence I mentioned in my opening testimony. 

Senator SPECTER. A good sentence? 

Mr. WRAY. One of the things that we have seen over the last couple of years is increasingly stiff penalties. For example, in fiscal 

year 2000, I do not think we had a single defendant who went to 

prison for more than 3 years. Last year, fiscal year 2003, we had 

I believe at least 10 who went for more than 3 years. So we are 

starting to see— 

Senator SPECTER. Do you sense a deterrent effect from the success you have had on sentencing? 

Mr. WRAY. We think we are starting to see the message getting 

through that we are serious about this and that we are cracking 

down. 

You also mentioned things that we could do to improve enforcement, and I think obviously, as a former prosecutor yourself, you 

can never have too many good investigators, and we would certainly always appreciate more agent resources to work on it because that would enable us to do more proactive investigations 

which, as you know, in an organized crime-type of setting enables 

us to penetrate the organizations in a more effective way. 

15

The other thing that I and all of my colleagues here on the panel 

are all recognizing is that this is a truly international problem. If 

you think of it like the weed in your yard, if you just focus on it 

domestically, all we are really doing is cutting off the blade that 

is above the soil, and we are not getting down into the roots of it. 

And by doing it in a multi-agency, international way, we are really 

trying to get at it everywhere because intellectual property crime 

in other countries has a direct impact on victims, businesses and 

consumers here. 

Senator SPECTER. General Wray, let me turn to that. With respect to suggestions about sanctions, which Mr. Mendenhall has 

mentioned, and China as being a major violator, which Mr. Dudas 

has mentioned, what would you think of the prospect of revoking 

China’s Most Favored Nation status? I did not like that in the first 

place. I was one of fifteen Senators to vote against that. 

Mr. Dudas, you say that China has a lack of piracy enforcement, 

and it is getting worse. Why not get tough with them and revoke 

their Most Favored Nation status? 

Mr. DUDAS. I think that is something that would have to be thoroughly discussed. I can tell you I think right now the initial step 

with China is to make clear that there are measurable, deliverable 

results that the United States must see. 

Senator SPECTER. Secretary Evans is a tough guy. What effect 

did he have when he jaw-boned him? 

Mr. DUDAS. I think he has had a fairly dramatic effect. When I 

went out in the last week, the sense I got, I think, is that the jury 

is out on what the Chinese will come in and want to discuss, and 

perhaps what they will deliver at the JCCT. 

Senator SPECTER. The jury is out? You are going to have to poll 

the jury. They are pretty hard to figure, even after they come back. 

Mr. DUDAS. I think what we are discussing now is what specifically does China need to show. We have found that the statistics 

that we see are not improving. The statistics show that our Customs seizures since 1997, 16 percent of seized goods came from 

mainland China. That has grown to over 66 percent of seized counterfeit goods coming from mainland China. 

I think, in the absence of seeing improvement in our statistics, 

the discussions we had with Chinese Government officials are: you 

will need to show specific improvement along the following lines. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mendenhall, let me turn to you because I 

have two more questions, and I want to conclude within my time 

limit. If Most Favored Nation status is not tough enough, what can 

we do tougher under 301 sanctions to Chinese? Just start there. 

They are the leading nominee for tough sanctions. 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Well, I would like to reiterate the comments 

that Mr. Dudas has made already. I think there is very little question that we are at that point where getting tough with China is 

where we ought to be 

There are processes that are in train that will hopefully get us 

to the point where we can make a fully considered decision about 

what the next steps would be; the next one being the JCCT meeting in mid-April, where we have, as Mr. Dudas explained, provided 

the Chinese with very concrete steps that we would expect them 

16

to take, concrete measures that we would expect them to take to 

move forward until that process is working. 

Senator SPECTER. What tough sanction, Mr. Mendenhall? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. I am sorry? 

Senator SPECTER. If they do not comply, what tough sanction? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Well, there are multiple options that would be 

presented to us. I mean, there is the multilateral option of going 

to the WTO, if we feel that that is appropriate at that point. There 

is this Section 301 process available under U.S. law, but that is— 

Senator SPECTER. How about closing our markets to them or tariffs like on steel? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Well, there are I think things that we would 

have to consider that would have to factor into that decisions. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Mendenhall, let me ask you to supplement 

your answer in writing because I want to ask Mr. Wayne a question, and I have only got 33 seconds left. 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Wayne, as I listen to the four of you—

Treasury, Justice, Commerce, State—four potent operations, do 

your four powerful organizations sit down in a joint cooperating 

Committee to figure out what they are doing and figure out ways 

to act in a joint way with all of the power that your four departments have? 

You can have the balance of my time on answering. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. The red light went on when I finished the 

question. 

Mr. WAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do sit down. We sit 

down regularly, and we sit down to look at it from several different 

angles. 

One, in the Special 301 process, we work very closely together. 

We are right now in the midst of getting reports from all of our 

embassies overseas, hearing from industry, hearing from other interested parties, and then we sit down together, and we work 

through what has the performance been over the past year, what 

makes the most sense vis-a-vis number of these key actors to really 

enforce the need for action. 

Secondly, we have a Committee that sits down on a monthly 

basis, at a working level, and looks at the different kind of training 

programs that are going on, from industry, from the various agencies, and we try to figure out what is working. Where should we 

put our priorities for the months ahead? Are there a set of 

trainings that really did produce results? Should we try and do 

that somewhere else? 

And then we have the NIPLECC process, which is led by USPTO 

and Justice, where we get together at a policy level and look at 

what is working overall, in our macro approach. 

So, in those three examples, and then in a number of other specific examples, especially, if we are considering going forward on 

the WTO process, I would say we are in really pretty much constant contact and constant discussion about what is working, what 

is not working, what is the best way to take on some of these ongoing problems. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Wayne. 

17

Senator Leahy? 

Senator LEAHY. Well, to follow up a little bit—I wanted to thank 

you—on what the Chairman said, Mr. Dudas and Mr. Mendenhall, 

I thought he asked very clear questions about China. I am not 

quite sure I got a clear answer, so I will be submitting more questions, but China has been ripping us off for years, and we keep saying, ‘‘Boy, next year, wow, it is going to be so much better.’’ They 

have an artificially set currency, which hurts us. A lot of American 

jobs are going over there, and I happen to be one who strongly believes in as much free trade as possible, if it is fair. I voted for a 

lot of the things to allow trade with other countries. 

And this has gotten beyond the question of ‘‘let us have another 

meeting’’, and ‘‘let us put the highest level in our meetings,’’ and 

‘‘let us have the highest discussions, and let us consider our options, of which there are many.’’ It is actually time to do something. 

They have made a laughingstock of us. They steal hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars from us every single year. I do not see 

where we do anything that is actually going to stop them. 

Take a place like Singapore—put a 3-inch graffiti mark on the 

wall somewhere, and you can go to jail. Steal hundreds of millions 

of dollars of American intellectual property, and you are probably 

going to get ‘‘businessperson of the year.’’ We really look like saps 

around the world with what happens. 

Mr. Wray, the Department of Justice plays a critical role in the 

enforcement of intellectual property rights. And of course whatever 

amount of time you spend on it, there are priorities—and of course 

in the Department of Justice you have to set priorities—that determines how effective our intellectual property will be. Obviously, if 

we had somebody who walks into a bank, and stole a billion dollars 

and made a clean get-away, the Department of Justice would put 

enormous resources to go after him. We have billions of dollars 

being stolen all the time. 

The AG’s Annual Report from 2002 cites 81 investigative matters 

that resulted in 52 cases filed in regard to trafficking in counterfeit 

goods. I am going to ask specifically for the record, does the Department have any plans to increase the number of investigative 

matters? What resources were devoted to counterfeit goods and IP 

piracy investigations in 2003? I will have those for the record. 

But we had a lot of publicized prosecution of the bootleg film of 

‘‘The Incredible Hulk.’’ Well, big whoop, they could have just waited. That movie sank like a rock at the box office. Within a couple 

of weeks, they probably could not have given away the copies. But 

I do not remember a significant prosecution in the intellectual 

property area over the past 3 years. What would you say are your 

10 most significant intellectual property prosecutions in the last 3 

years—the 10 most significant intellectual property prosecutions in 

the last 3 years? I am not saying the last year. I will give you 3 

whole years, at 3-and-a-third a year? 

Mr. WRAY. I think one of the biggest ones was something called 

‘‘Operation Buccaneer,’’ which was a large piracy conspiracy that 

involved search warrants all over the world, has resulted in I think 

26 convictions so far, as well as some prosecutions overseas, working in partnership with overseas— 

18

Senator LEAHY. How many of those convictions were here in the 

United States? 

Mr. WRAY. I am sorry? 

Senator LEAHY. How many convictions in the United States? 

Mr. WRAY. Twenty-six in that operation so far. 

Senator LEAHY. What was the nature of the intellectual property 

being stolen? 

Mr. WRAY. I believe it was movies, and CDs, and that sort of 

thing. I can try to see if I can find the specifics on that. 

Senator LEAHY. How many people went to prison? 

Mr. WRAY. I believe that a significant number of those 26 have 

gotten prison sentences. I do not have the specifics for that. 

Senator LEAHY. Do you have any idea of how long? 

Mr. WRAY. As I mentioned before, the sentences we are seeing 

are going up more, so, increasingly, for example I think we got a 

70-month sentence, which is more than historically we have been 

getting in those types of cases. 

Another sig— 

Senator LEAHY. If a bank robber stole $100 million, what would 

they get for a prison sentence? 

Mr. WRAY. If it was armed, he would of course— 

Senator LEAHY. No, just— 

Mr. WRAY. Just a ‘‘note job’’ kind of thing? With $100-million loss, I would have to look at the sentencing guidelines for $100-million loss, but you would look at the loss table under the sentencing 

guidelines, and my guess is probably 7, 8, something like that, 

years. 

Senator LEAHY. You have got a black kid in the inner city who sells a couple grams of crack cocaine to his classmate for $40, what 

do they get? 

Mr. WRAY. I am sorry. How much cocaine? I did not— 

Senator LEAHY. A couple grams. Five grams. Say five grams, and 

say they make a $40 profit on it overall between what they paid 

for it and what they sold it to one of their classmates at school, 

how long are they going to go to jail? 

Mr. WRAY. In excess of 5 years. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, you know, we probably have a lot of 

businesspeople who might say, well, look at those kids and see 

what we might do, but maybe the person who stole several million 

dollars’ worth of counterfeit goods ought to go—but give me a couple more of your, you have given me one of the most significant 

prosecutions. You can give the 10 over the 3 years for the record, 

but give me a couple more. 

Mr. WRAY. A couple more would be a case that we recently 

brought in Alabama involving counterfeit pesticide, in which the 

defendant sold the pesticide, passing it off as legitimate pesticide 

to deal with West Nile Virus. So, of course, you had all of these 

municipalities all over the Southern United States buying this 

stuff, thinking that they were going to protect their communities 

with it, and in fact it was not the real stuff. That defendant, I do 

not have his sentence off the top of my head, but that was another 

significant case. 

Senator LEAHY. You see what I am leading to, and also overseas, 

if you can address that, because I mentioned my provision to put 

19

$2.5 million to address IP piracy overseas, and I want to make sure 

that really is a priority of the FBI, which is under your Department. 

Mr. WRAY. Our international focus has been primarily on working, forging partnerships with our law enforcement counterparts 

overseas. So, more and more, we are trying to engage in things like 

Operation Buccaneer. There is another one called ‘‘Operation 

Safehaven,’’ where we are working with law enforcement partners 

in other countries to try to make it a coordinated take-down, where 

they take down some of the people there, we take down some of 

them here, searches are being executed all over the world. It is an 

effort to try to get at the entire organization and dismantle it, 

much the same way we would in situations that you are also familiar with, with drug organizations, major organized organizations, 

and other contexts, suck as terrorist organizations. The idea is to 

try to dismantle the organization. 

And so working with our international partners on the law enforcement-to-law enforcement relationships, that is kind of where 

our focus is on that front. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

I will submit the other questions for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. 

Senator Biden? 

STATMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

The three of us, and others, have done an awful lot of work in 

this area. In speaking for myself, Senator Smith and I started a 

caucus of now 70 Members of the House and Senate to deal with 

this issue. The reason I bother to say that is not to say we have 

done this, it is to acknowledge that we know how difficult this is. 

This is a very difficult problem. 

And some of the answers asked are of above your pay grades to 

be able to answer, we understand, because there are policy decisions that have to be made. But, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the record. 

Senator SPECTER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Biden appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator BIDEN. We have done this. We have held other hearings. 

We have written reports. We have made suggestions. But let me 

get to what I think is one of the core problems here. 

In a sense, advances in technology have outrun our enforcement 

capabilities. It is awful hard to catch up, and I understand that. 

But if you are willing, and I am not being solicitous when I say 

this—and I understand if you do not want to take a chance and answer these questions—but what are the tradeoffs that you all have 

to make on the enforcement side? Let us talk about the Special 

Trade Representative, the State Department, the Commerce Department. 

The truth of the matter is I introduced a bill last year that had 

a lot of support until I decided to try and make it more difficult, 

20

and all of a sudden I found I had a split between software manufacturers and the industries, and it broke off. 

The Chamber of Commerce does not know what they are talking 

about here, and the AFL–CIO does not know what they are talking 

about here either because they have real problems internally. 

There are great splits. The harder you come down on this, the more 

you are going to make my chemical manufacturers angry, the more 

you are going to make my—I see the head of the Chamber of Commerce. He cannot give you a straight answer, and I love him, and 

the reason he cannot is his constituency is split. And if he does not 

know it, he should come to Delaware, and I will explain to them 

why they are split. 

Because if you enforce 301, then there is a backfire. You may 

very well deal with these guys. You may crack down, but all of a 

sudden he is going to have all of these guys on his doorstep from 

the Business Roundtable saying, ‘‘Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a 

minute. You are talking about this intellectual property stuff. You 

have got everybody all ginned up. They went ahead, and they imposed sanctions, and now, guess what?’’ You guys know the rest of 

the story. 

Tell me what the competing interests are. Not good guys/bad, 

what are the competing interests? The truth of the matter is we 

have not imposed 301 Sanctions to any degree that it hurt and anybody yelled, ‘‘Uncle.’’ Why? There is a good reason. Tell me the reason why. I think there is a good reason. I am being serious. I am 

not trying to—but explain to the public, so I am not doing it because they do not believe Senators, but they will believe very impressive bureaucrats. And I mean that sincerely, you are an impressive bunch. I give you my word. I mean that sincerely. 

What are the reasons, Mr. Mendenhall? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Well, I would like to say actually two things 

about that. 

Senator BIDEN. Do not give me a State Department answer, 

okay? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MENDENHALL. I will turn to my colleague for that. 

There are two things: One, at times the threat of 301 Sanctions 

has had some impact. It did with China in the mid-1990’s. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, it can have a lot of impact. Why do you not, 

in fact, use it? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Right. Well, the domestic reason, of course, is 

that imposing sanctions also has implications for our own folks. If 

we block— 

Senator BIDEN. Explain that. What do you mean? Give me an example of implications. 

Mr. MENDENHALL. If we impose sanctions on or raise tariffs or 

otherwise block imports, it does have repercussions through the 

economy for those who need to import their raw materials for production, those who otherwise purchase the goods, sell them in the 

United States, that type of thing. So there are political tradeoffs 

that have to be made. 

Senator BIDEN. And by the way, I want to make clear, I am not 

saying they are Democrat-Republican political tradeoffs. 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Right. 

21

Senator BIDEN. But there are tradeoffs, there are economic tradeoffs, right? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. Yes. There are tradeoffs, yes. 

Senator BIDEN. Now, a second question is, I am going to make 

a statement, and if any one of you disagree with me, do not just 

disagree. Tell me why you disagree. 

I would posit that the reason why we have not moved in the way 

we should move is, quite frankly, on the scale of economic interest, 

this is at the lower end of the scale. The tradeoffs that we have 

to pay for, for imposing sanctions that were legitimately able to be 

imposed, would exceed the benefit we perceive would come from 

getting international piracy significantly stunted in its growth. 

The short-term and mid-term tradeoffs will be significant for the 

economy, right? Who are you going to hear from if, in fact, you go 

ahead and impose 301 Sanctions against China on this issue? 

Mr. MENDENHALL. I do not think we can say categorically that 

the tradeoffs are such that it would necessarily be a bad thing, not 

result in the results that we want at the end of the day. I think, 

at this stage of the game, we should not take any options off the 

table, and we should consider— 

Senator BIDEN. With all due respect, then, if they would not, 

then you are doing a very bad job. You are doing a very bad job. 

Unless you—Commerce, State and Special Trade Rep—cannot demonstrate that the economic impact to the United States, by imposing what we legitimately could impose on in terms of sanctions for 

piracy far exceed the cost of the piracy, then you are derelict and 

irresponsible—flat out, you are derelict and irresponsible. 

It has cost us 750,000 jobs. Forget the money, 750,000 jobs. The 

Chamber and a lot of other people think outsourcing is not such a 

bad idea, and from an economic model, they may be right, but from 

the terms of the impact on the economy and people, it is devastating—750,000 jobs. 

And let me explain to folks who are listening. It is a real simple 

reason. When we do not have someone in a factory making that little disk, when we do not have someone reproducing that movie, it 

is being reproduced overseas, so no one else reproduces it. They are 

manufacturing jobs, they are high-tech jobs, and we are losing 

them, and 750,000, according to our estimates, this administration’s estimates from the U.S. Customs Service. 

So I am supposed to sum up now. Folks, look, we have got to get 

honest with the American people. There is no question that we are 

not for using the tools available to us. There may be a good reason 

why we do not use them all, but let us explain to people. They are 

smart. They are smart. Tell the truth. 

My time is up, and no one can believe I actually stopped within 

my time. So that is why there is this stunned silence here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Biden. 

Senator BIDEN. Surprised, huh? 

Senator SPECTER. Well, that is emphasis which we have come to 

expect from Senator Biden. He and I ride the train from Washington to Wilmington, where he gets off and I go on to Philadelphia. I have had more time today, equal time. Occasionally, I get 

22

in a word with Senator Biden when we ride the train, but only occasionally. Senator Leahy concurs, I think. [Laughter.] 

Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. We are glad to see the 

Treasury Department, and the Justice Department, and the Trade 

Representative, and the State Department going after this issue. 

This Committee is very deeply concerned about it, and we are 

ready, willing and able to help you further. We like the idea of 

tough prosecutions and the sanctions as a deterrent. 

Speaking for myself, I believe there could be more done on sanctions dealing with China as an example. Secretary Snow was in 

China, as well as Secretary Evans. Senator Biden was in China as 

well, and from the reactions that I got when I was with Senator 

Biden, I have doubts as to the impact and would be looking for 

something tougher. 

So thank you very much. We will continue to work together. 

Senator BIDEN. Thanks, guys. 

Senator SPECTER. We will now turn to our next panel: Mr. Thomas J. Donohue, Mr. Richard K. Willard, Mr. Brad Buckles, Ms. 

Vanessa Price, and Mr. Timothy Trainer. 

While the panel is being assembled and seated, I will start with 

the introduction of our first witness, Mr. Thomas J. Donohue, 

President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the 

strongest—perhaps the strongest—advocacy group representatives 

of American business in the country. He has held that position 

since 1997. For 8 years before, he was group vice president for the 

Chamber, and prior to that he had worked 13 years as president 

and CEO of the American Trucking Association, the national organization of that industry. 

Mr. Donohue has had a very keen interest in this subject and recently held a long symposium in the Chamber on it, and we welcome him here today to continue the exploration of this important 

subject and to figure out what more can be done to deal with it. 

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Donohue, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DONOHUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I am glad Senator Biden is here. Maybe we can carry 

on with his discussion. 

First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for participating in our 

program, where we kicked off the Chamber’s massive long-term effort on intellectual property and counterfeiting issues here and 

around the world. Your interest, I would say accelerated interest 

after your participation in that event, has had a lot to do with 

bringing us here today, and we very much appreciate your efforts. 

For the members of the panel, Senators, let me say that the 

Chamber’s program has got three parts to it: 

First, we are going to mass a large educational effort to explain 

to people what is at stake here, what is being lost and, by the way, 

how many of our fellow citizens are helping—inadvertently, perhaps—helping the counterfeiters. 

Second, we are going to spend a good deal of time on cross-industry domestic coalition building to protect our supply chain. What 

23

that means, we have got to bring the people together on these 

issues in a way that does the type of research, the top economic 

analysis and answers the very question that Senator Biden asked. 

And, finally, we are launching a whole series of international 

issues to go where the problem is, some of it being overseas, some 

of it being here, and to create a tremendous amount of pressure, 

including, by the way, notwithstanding the Senator’s point, a willingness on our part to play serious hardball. I am not sure, Mr. 

Chairman, that I would join your view of saying that we ought to 

get rid of our relationship with China, but I would suggest a number of ways in the discussion that we might use our relationship 

with China and the rules-based organization to light a fire under 

them. Action not talk. 

But I do appreciate the opportunity to come up here and to say 

in very simple terms that the American people do not understand 

this problem. Some of our own family will go out and buy a 

knockoff watch or go out and buy a purse, and they do not think 

much about that, but you need to understand that this is, if we 

wanted to go into the criminal business together, this would be a 

great crime to get involved with because the sanctions and the 

costs are very light and the opportunities to make a ton of money 

are there, but folks have to understand this is a well-financed effort. These are groups of people, criminal in nature, large investment capabilities. Do you know what it costs to buy a truckload of 

disks to steal? You need a million dollars. So there is a lot of 

money in here. 

And the other thing we have to educate our fellow citizens on, 

that this is a very sophisticated issue that is hurting us in pharmaceuticals, automobile parts, airplane parts, components for technology. This is a serious matter with many risks. 

I have heard—and I am not going to repeat what some of the 

people said here—but we are talking about a three-quarter of a 

trillion dollar problem, and we are talking about, as Senator Biden 

indicated, a lot of lost jobs. 

On the other hand, by the way, if the panel would allow it during 

the discussion, we are bringing far more jobs into this country, on 

in-sourcing and other ways to be discussed at another time, than 

we are losing on outsourcing. Outsourcing and in-sourcing we have 

discussed, but criminal activity that is costing us three-quarters of 

a million jobs, and it is taking three-quarters of a trillion dollars 

out of the taxpaying systems in our countries is a dumb idea. 

What we need to do is—and I appreciate the point you made to 

the fellows and the representatives of the Government agencies—

we have got to make this an expensive crime to get involved in. 

This is not a victimless-type crime. There are people being hurt on 

this all of the time. One of the major pharmaceutical companies 

had to recall all of their drugs on cholesterol because there were 

some phony drugs. So these are the kinds of issues that we need 

to get involved in. 

Mr. Chairman, the time always runs very, very quickly on these 

clocks. I simply want to say that we are going to invest a lot of 

money, over a long period of time, to go out and dramatically increase the communication on this issue and understanding, to interrupt supply chains that we think are fraudulent and protect 

24

supply chains that are not, and to push domestically and internationally to make this an expensive crime to get involved in. 

May I end with just one sentence, sir? The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, we have gotten pretty good at forcing 

American business into a coalition of interests, and there are some 

times we do not, so on behalf of the whole business community, we 

are not going to listen to the complaints of some. I think we have 

demonstrated our willingness to lead on this deal, not follow. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donohue appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Donohue. 

We turn now to Mr. Richard Willard, senior vice president and 

general counsel of The Gillette Company, chairs the Product Counterfeiting Working Group of the National Association of Manufacturers. For 5 years, between 1983 and 1988, he served as assistant 

attorney general in the Department of Justice Civil Division. 

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Willard, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. WILLARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR COUNSEL, THE GILLETTE COMPANY, 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. WILLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. It is a pleasure for me to be here today to talk about 

this important issue to my company. I am also here on behalf of 

the Grocery Manufacturers of America, a trade association representing a lot of consumer product companies as well. 

Our company, Gillette, we manufacture and market a broad 

range of products, not just the famous Gillette shaving products, 

but also Duracell batteries, Oral-B toothbrushes, and a number of 

other lines of products. 

We also participate and work with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, both of 

which are represented here today as witnesses. 

I would like to make my brief time for my spoken remarks to 

make a few quick points: 

First of all, counterfeiting is not a problem limited to luxury 

goods. In fact, that is a tiny fraction of it. I have here in front of 

me two packages of what appear to be Duracell batteries. The one 

on the right I can tell you a lot about. I know where it was manufactured, I know what is in it, I know how long it will last. The 

one on my left is counterfeit. It was one of one million counterfeit 

batteries we seized in a single seizure in China, recently. 

Senator BIDEN. One million. 

Mr. WILLARD. One million at one time. Other than that, I cannot 

tell you much about it. I do not know what is in it. I suspect it will 

last maybe a tenth as long as the real Duracell battery, but that 

is about it. 

The danger to consumers, of course, is that they can unknowingly buy counterfeit products that will underperform. More seriously, as testimony has already brought out, they can buy counterfeit products that are actually dangerous to their health and safety. 

25

I would like to turn briefly to what I think this Committee 

should look into doing. 

First of all, we need to close some loopholes in U.S. laws. We 

need to outlaw trafficking in counterfeit labels and packaging in 

the U.S. and overturn the recent decision of the Tenth Circuit in 

the Giles case, which said it was not a crime to traffic in counterfeit labels unless they were actually attached to a counterfeit product. That is a loophole that the counterfeiters know how to exploit 

here and in China in our experience, where they simply bifurcate 

the counterfeiting process, and thus insulate the manufacturing 

and the more expensive equipment from any liability because it 

only becomes a counterfeit when the label is put on it. 

We also need to make, under our U.S law, mandatory the seizure 

and destruction of machinery used to make counterfeit products 

and labels. 

If we can make these changes in U.S. domestic law, then we can 

leverage that through Free Trade Agreements to make other countries make these changes in their law. USTR understandably takes 

the position it will not negotiate requirements in FTAs that would 

require a change in domestic U.S. law, and so we cannot get other 

countries to make these changes in their laws unless we first make 

them in our own laws if we want to impose that requirement under 

Free Trade Agreements. 

And then, finally, my last suggestion is that our Government 

needs to be explicit in its pressure on China, not just to say we 

want you to do something, but to tell them what to do. And the one 

thing they could do that would make a big difference is to implement an enforcement program at the point of export. They should 

be examining cargos, as they are shipped out of China, to discover 

counterfeit goods and, at that point, to seize the goods, destroy 

them and prosecute the people who are exporting the goods. There 

is no such enforcement program in existence now. 

And so it is really not such a matter of just telling China we 

want you to do something, it is a matter of telling them what to 

do and giving them the assistance, law enforcement training and 

other resources to help them do the job effectively. 

We have been doing business in China for a number of years. It 

is a very valuable market for our company, and we do not want to 

antagonize the Chinese Government. What we ought to do is help 

them develop an effective enforcement policy, and I believe the top 

leadership in China recognizes that counterfeiting is bad for their 

country as well as for others. What they do not have is the competence to implement an effective enforcement program, and I 

think we can help them develop that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willard appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Willard. 

Our next witness is Mr. Brad Buckles, executive vice president 

for Antipiracy at the Recording Industry Association of America. 

He formerly worked as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives. 

We thank you for being here today, Mr. Buckles, and the floor 

is yours. 

26

STATEMENT OF BRAD BUCKLES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR ANTIPIRACY, RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BUCKLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator 

Biden, for holding this hearing on the devastating effects of counterfeiting and theft of tangible intellectual property. 

The Recording Industry Association of America is a trade association that represents the U.S. recording industry, and our members create, manufacture and distribute approximately 90 percent 

of all of the legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. 

One of the primary missions of our trade association is to protect 

the intellectual property of our members from theft. 

Intellectual property is our country’s number one export and 

comprises more than 5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product 

over the last few years. And our creative and artistic genius in 

America is what fuels the intellectual property industries, and it is 

one of our most precious commodities. Yet everyday in our country 

intellectual property is stolen here in the United States and around 

the world through the sale of pirate and counterfeit copies of music, 

movies and software. We cannot permit criminals to openly steal 

this country’s greatest assets. 

Piracy is not a private offense against those businesses that 

produce intellectual property. In the case of the industry I represent, piracy and counterfeiting hurts everyone, those who make 

music and those who love it, in diminishing the incentive for others 

to invest in the creation of that music. Moreover, like other underground businesses, pirate sales also deprive Governments of tax 

revenues. Intellectual property pirates do not invest in recorded 

music, they steal it. They do not pay taxes. Like drug dealers, they 

launder their proceeds to hide their profits. 

The counterfeiting of music is almost as old as the recording industry itself, but with the advent of the compact disk, the nature 

of piracy was radically altered by providing a pirate producer with 

the opportunity to produce near-perfect qualities of a recording. 

There is now massive manufacturing and international trafficking 

in illegal CDs and DVDs. The recent proliferation of inexpensive, 

recordable optic disks—or CD–Rs—combined with readily available 

CD burning capability has only served to compound the problem. 

Our partners in the International Federation of Phonographic Industries—the IFPI—report that worldwide music pirate sales approach 2 billion units annually, with an estimated value of $4- to 

$5 billion. Globally, the IFPI estimates that two in five recordings 

are pirate or counterfeit copies. 

This new manufacturing capacity clearly exceeds the amount of 

legitimate demand and creates a business environment right for exploitation by criminals. The physical production of a pirate CD 

costs as little as 35 cents. Given that the pirate producer has none 

of the overhead associated with the creating of the intellectual content on the disk, the profit margin is enormous. 

To address this problem, the music industry, the IFPI, the RIAA, 

and other industry associations around the world have established 

Antipiracy Units to work with law enforcement agencies to combat 

music theft. The IFPI’s unit specifically targets organized criminals 

who operate in transnational piracy schemes. They have found eviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:21 Feb 07, 2005 Jkt 098207 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98207.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
27

dence of organized criminal involvement that is incontrovertible 

and examples are given in my written testimony. 

In the U.S., we have also seen that as music piracy has become 

more lucrative, the organizations that produce, distribute and sell 

counterfeit and pirate music have become more complex and more 

sophisticated. The most extreme form of organized crime affecting 

our society is terrorism, and the clandestine nature of terrorist organizations requires large sums of money to maintain their operation, and the high profit margins on intellectual property have 

been particularly attractive. 

Law enforcement officials have called for more careful attention 

to this problem. Taking a leadership role, Interpol General Secretary Ron Noble has pledged the full support of Interpol in addressing what he describes as the intensive involvement of organized crime and terrorist groups in intellectual property crimes. 

The music industry is committed to confronting the organized 

groups that now threaten the very survival of our business, and no 

other business invests so much energy or capital, and no industry 

has such a wide range of professionals and investigative resources 

dedicated to this problem around the world. 

I look forward to working with the Committee on these important issues, and thank you again for your attention to these matters. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckles appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Buckles. 

Our next witness is Ms. Vanessa Price, intellectual property specialist of Burton Snowboards Corporation, based on Vermont. 

Thank you for making the trip down, Ms. Price. I had occasion 

to be in Burlington recently. Our younger son is a second-year 

medical student. Senator Leahy is a Vermonter. I commented to 

him that I thought the 5-degree-below-zero weather was brisk and 

refreshing, and came back to Philadelphia, where it was 24 and a 

heat wave. So it must be nice for you to be down South today. 

The floor is yours, Ms. Price. 

Senator LEAHY. Senator Specter did not mention that he was 

there in May. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF VANESSA PRICE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

SPECIALIST, BURTON SNOWBOARDS, BURLINGTON, VERMONT 

Ms. PRICE. It is a pleasure to come down here today. It feels like 

summer compared to what we have had in Vermont. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, for inviting me to 

come down and speak today. 

Despite vigorous measures to protect our intellectual property 

through trademark and patent registrations, Burton has seen significant counterfeiting recently, and we expect that counterfeiting 

will increase dramatically as our brand continues to grow. As a 

smaller company, Burton is deeply concerned about the rise in 

theft of our IP since we do not have the resources that it takes to 

combat or offset the effects of large-scale counterfeiting. 

I would like to also tell you a little bit about Burton. The Burton 

name has become synonymous with snowboarding. We were foundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:21 Feb 07, 2005 Jkt 098207 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\98207.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
28

ed in 1977, and we are a Vermont-based company that employs 350 

people in Vermont and 160 people at offices in Japan and Austria. 

The board sports industry credits Burton Snowboards with the 

founding and popularization of snowboarding as a legitimate sport. 

Snowboarding is growing rapidly worldwide. Snow Sports Industries of America, our trade group, estimates that participation in 

snowboarding has increased 300 percent since 1998. 

Burton has seized this opportunity to grow its brand and has expanded to include Gravis Footwear, Analog casual apparel, Anon 

Optics, and R.E.D. Protective Gear. However, this growth in popularity is not without a significant downside. Our industry has gone 

through considerable consolidation in recent years. Most of the 

snowboarding manufacturers are seasoned competitors at this 

point. Competition is keen and profits are shrinking, even as the 

sport grows in popularity. 

Unfair competition from counterfeiters significantly compounds 

the problems of seasonality and severe sensitivity to economic 

downturns that our industry already faces. Virtually none of the 

companies that manufacture ski and snowboard equipment are 

large enough to have the resources or tools necessary to fight counterfeiting, leaving a growing portion of what should be domestic 

revenue going to foreign counterfeiters. We could not even guesstimate the amount of tax revenue that the U.S. Treasury loses to 

these unrealized gains. 

Burton has taken all available and appropriate steps to register 

our trademarks both in the U.S. and internationally. Currently, we 

maintain more than 60 trademark registrations in the U.S. alone. 

We have also taken the additional steps of registering our trademarks with Customs officials in the U.S., Chile, Argentina, Brazil, 

Hong Kong, China, as well as several other countries. Unfortunately, filing with Customs has offered us very scant protection. 

Burton also holds patents worldwide relating to our snowboard 

technology, including boots, bindings, snowdecks, and snowboards. 

So we have really availed ourselves of all possible protection. However, despite the measures that we have taken, we see growing evidence that our brand is suffering from counterfeiting and illegitimate sales. 

Burton has noticed growing problems with small-scale counterfeiting in the U.S. Typically, this involves the manufacture and 

sale of fake stickers, accessories and clothing on Internet auction 

sites, specifically eBay. We can find these goods almost any day of 

the week continuously. All the time, if you check eBay, you can 

find Burton. eBay affords us the opportunity to get these auctions 

taken off of their site, but again, after they are off the site, we really do not know where the goods go. We do not know who is making 

them. We have no way of really going after them, small scale or 

large scale. This might not appear to be a big problem for us, but 

we manufacture limited editions of certain things, and when they 

show up on eBay in a large quantity, it just causes our brand to 

lose commercial appeal really. 

Burton right now is in the process of expanding from one-season 

business, moving beyond snowboarding into the apparel business, 

expanding our sales of T-shirts, fleeces, sweatshirts and accessories. As this aspect of our business grows, we see significant 

29

counterfeiting. Relative to our boards, bindings, our engineering 

technology, these items are easier to counterfeit and sell worldwide. 

Typically, we see them showing up in markets in Asia, China, Taiwan, et cetera. We see them all over the place. 

This is not unique to Burton. This is a problem that is pervasive 

in the board sports industry. 

My time is up, but that is mostly it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Price appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Price. 

Our final witness on the panel is Mr. Timothy Trainer, president 

of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, a group which 

concentrates on protection of industry from counterfeiting and piracy. Mr. Trainer has been an order with Arder & Hadden and 

worked at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 

We look forward to your testimony, Mr. Trainer. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY P. TRAINER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ANTICOUNTERFEITING COALITION, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. TRAINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy. On 

behalf of the IACC and its members, I thank the Committee for the 

opportunity to address the issue of product counterfeiting and piracy that generates revenues for criminals and impacts our National economic security, consumer safety and economic health of 

the companies that develop, make and distribute products that incorporate intellectual property assets. Our members represent a 

cross-section of industries from autos and medicines to toys and entertainment. 

Due to time constraints, I will summarize my full written submission. 

The IACC, respectfully, requests that the Committee and Congress consider implementing the following package of recommendations to combat counterfeiting and piracy: 

Strengthen the Federal criminal statute against trafficking in 

counterfeit goods; 

Encourage Federal law enforcement agencies to increase investigations and prosecutions of manufacturers, distributors and others involved in the trafficking of counterfeit goods; 

Increase vigilance at the U.S. border regardless of the products 

involved; 

Impose higher IP enforcement standards on trading partners; 

And support Interpol’s effort to combat international trafficking 

in counterfeit goods. 

The last three IACC Special 301 submissions to the U.S. Trade 

Representative have identified nearly 40 countries that have woefully inadequate and ineffective systems against product counterfeiting and piracy. The products targeted by counterfeiters in the 

global market are, at times, shocking because of the reckless disregard counterfeiters have for consumers in their effort to profit off 

of famous trademark goods. 

There are no industries exempt from counterfeiting and no country spared. Although consumers may generally be aware of the 

30

counterfeit watches, handbags, shirts, hats and sunglasses offered 

at flea markets and on big city streets, they are not well aware of 

the fact that the global counterfeiting industry has moved into 

pharmaceuticals, auto parts, toys, batteries, extension cords, cosmetics, beverages, body lotions, home electrical appliances, tools, 

pesticides and vision wear. 

This sample list underscores the products that are now counterfeited here and around the world. Highlighting a few examples, one 

auto industry member found 7,000 sets of counterfeit brake pads 

in China intended for export to Egypt. Another auto industry member reported raids resulting in the seizure of thousands of counterfeit windshields and several thousand suspension control arms valued at nearly $4 million. 

Another member, whose certification mark is relied upon as a 

mark of safety, reported that U.S. Customs seized 91 shipments of 

counterfeits bearing its mark in fiscal year 2003. These seizures included air compressors valued at $1.5 million that had counterfeit 

ground fault circuit interrupters, a $700,000 seizure of counterfeit 

extension cords, power strips and hair trimmers that, in turn, led 

to an additional $7-million seizure of counterfeit extension cords 

and power strips, and there are examples here on the table. In addition to the Customs seizures, another million-dollar seizure of 

Chinese-made counterfeit portable and hand tools was made by police in Southern California. 

In Australia, an investigation led to the discovery of massive 

counterfeit operations of Chinese-made counterfeit batteries and 

razors. Three containers heading to different ports—Dubai, Oman, 

and Los Angeles—were seized having counterfeit goods valued at 

$1.5 million. Australian authorities also seized two shipments of 

counterfeit shampoo from China bearing the trademark of a famous 

brand. 

In 2003, counterfeit vodka in the U.K. caused hospitalization and 

induced coma for consumers who unknowingly purchased the counterfeit vodka containing dangerous levels of methanol. 

Turning to counterfeit batteries for a moment, a boy playing with 

a toy that had a counterfeit battery suffered facial injuries from an 

exploding battery, and a man suffered injuries to a hand when his 

remote control exploded from the use of a counterfeit battery, both 

incidents in Malaysia. Nokia found that counterfeit batteries used 

in connection with their cell phones were exploding as reports of 

such incidents were widespread—from Vietnam to the Netherlands. 

Russia’s chief trade inspector noted that for certain categories of 

consumer items, 30 to 50 percent of the market consists of counterfeits. These product lines include alcohol, juices, butter, vegetable 

oil, canned foods, tea, coffee and cosmetics. 

Domestically, in addition to the auto parts, substandard and 

counterfeit heavy-duty truck replacement parts are also getting 

into the U.S. aftermarket in significant numbers, and the problem 

is likely to get worse, according to the industry. 

In the power tool industry, counterfeits pose risks due to the substandard parts and their failure to stand up to the type of use that 

genuine-tested products can withstand. In one case involving civil 

and criminal judicial proceedings, the focus was on theft of trade 

31

secrets and the sale of counterfeit fiber optics products and lighting. 

Product counterfeiting affects all industries and all countries. 

The volume of seized goods is a clear indication of large-scale manufacturing and a sophisticated distribution sales network. Thus, 

the challenge of global counterfeiting is one that must be fought 

with the cooperation of our trading partners and relevant intergovernmental organizations. The recommendations that we have proposed are only a few of the many things that need to be done. 

In conclusion, we cannot treat any type of counterfeiting as a 

victimless crime or we risk attracting criminal elements to this 

type of ‘‘easy money’’ activity. The present situation begs the question: Where does the money go? We have yet to learn exactly where 

the money goes, but do we dare to take the risk that some of the 

funds land in the hands or accounts of individuals or groups that 

will do the unthinkable? 

A multi-pronged effort is needed to take more aggressive enforcement actions, implement a broad strategic plan to target sources, 

educate consumers and train Government officials and business 

leaders in ways to make IP enforcement more effective. 

Thank you very much, and I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trainer appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Trainer. 

Without objection, Chairman Hatch’s statement will be made a 

part of the record. 

Mr. Donohue, when you say you would not want to end our relationship with China, I certainly think that is a correct—I think we 

could not end our relationship with China if we wanted to. They 

are the oncoming superpower. And we talk about China because 

they seem to threaten us the most. They were trying to influence 

our 1996 presidential election. They take a librarian from Dickinson College and do not relent until there is pressure in a Sense of 

the Senate Resolution. And we try to structure what we think are 

civilized, but tough, sanctions. What would you suggest as to how 

we deal with China? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, China has 1.3 billion people. We have a lot 

of companies—and by the way the Congress would encourage 

this—that would like over time to be able to sell those people 

things. 

We compete with the EU, whose economy is probably going to be 

20-percent greater than ours after their enlargement, and so our 

work with the Chinese have to be twofold, one is engagement, and 

inducement and correction, and the other is economic advance for 

both countries and the positive benefit of keeping China in a rulesbased system, and we ought to use that rules-based system. 

We also must understand that the central Government in China 

is making a lot of progress on this. The provinces run by very 

strong Governments are a little more liberal, as you know. But as 

you know, Senator, from your participation in our program, we intend to let the American people and everybody around the world 

know what is being talked about here, what the cost is, what it is 

doing to our country. 

32

We intend to interdict the supply chain and the logistics chain 

with a lot of action to make it more difficult for them to do what 

they want to do, and that requires the help of our Government. But 

we very much intend to put a lot of pressure on China—not only 

China—China, Russia, Brazil, Korea, India to play by the rules. 

And you raised a lot of issues with the first panel, and I do not 

know why anybody would get excited about all of the things we 

talk about in terms of intellectual property and counterfeiting theft 

because nobody goes to jail. I mean, there are a few good examples 

here, and domestically that is a lot easier, but my view is, if you 

make enough noise, if you put enough pressure on our own Government and on Governments overseas, if you put enough pressure on 

American business that it is going to become more difficult, more 

expensive, more embarrassing, and much less attractive to have 

anything to do with this counterfeiting issue. 

Senator Biden was kind enough to come down and say a word 

before he left. As you know, the Chamber works very hard to have 

a consensus within our members, but there are no group of members that are going to get us off this issue. We have made a 5-year, 

very significant commitment to go out there and ring this bell until 

people hear it. 

And my issue, in dealing with the Chinese, is constructive engagement and very, very tough enforcement. Do not ask me if I 

want to do a 301 because that has all kinds of other implications. 

There are lots of ways to ring their bell in the domestic and in the 

international market, and we are prepared to do it. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, when you talk about enforcement, both 

Mr. Willard and Mr. Buckles have talked about Interpol. Mr. Willard, when you have asked that the loopholes be tightened, our 

staffs will be in touch with your office to get the specifics. That is 

something that, speaking for myself—and I believe I would have 

co-sponsors—we would be glad to do. 

But when you talk about, as you articulated it, inspect, seize, destroy and prosecute, that is a pretty good quartet. How about it, 

Mr. Willard, Mr. Buckles, both of you, might Interpol be used? 

They are investigative, and fact-finding and pooling agencies, but 

what would you think of some effort at international prosecution? 

Too ambitious, Mr. Buckles? ATF would probably like to do that. 

Mr. BUCKLES. Right. Well, we are making some significant inroads to prosecutions around the world, working with representatives of Interpol. 

Senator SPECTER. But will China prosecute? 

Mr. BUCKLES. Well, we have in selective locations. We were successful in Hong Kong, for example, in having laws changed in Hong 

Kong that resulted in a change of— 

Senator SPECTER. A pretty sophisticated part of China. How 

about the rest of China? 

Mr. BUCKLES. Well, there are still problems in the rest of China, 

there is not any question. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Willard, how about it, could we use 

Interpol to take an aggressive lead there? 

Mr. WILLARD. Well, Senator, I think that the most promising avenue would be to get the Chinese Government itself, perhaps in cooperation with the United States, to implement an enforcement 

33

program at the point of export. That is kind of a choke point, and 

there is no enforcement there now. 

We do get a fair amount of enforcement inside China. Every 

week that goes by, our company conducts raids on factories that 

are making counterfeit products. We do get seizures. We get prosecutions. We have even had people sentenced to prison in China for 

counterfeiting our products. 

What the Chinese Government does not do is conduct a program 

of surveillance at the point of export. So, if they had agents on the 

docks in Shanghai and other key ports who would go through cargos before they leave the country and seize the counterfeit products, we think that would make a big dent in the problem, and that 

is something that is not happening at all right now. I do not think 

that requires Interpol; it just requires a commitment—a financial 

commitment—as well as expertise on the part of the Chinese Government. 

Senator SPECTER. Ms. Price, you have outlined what you have 

done to try to investigate infringements on your property, have you 

taken those facts to prosecutors and gotten any results? 

Ms. PRICE. No, we have not. We have not taken those facts to 

prosecutors, not in terms of— 

Senator SPECTER. You might do that. You have articulated quite 

a long list of investigative actions you have undertaken. 

Ms. PRICE. On our counterfeiting side, we have not taken very 

much to prosecution. However, on our patent infringement side, we 

have had substantial litigation in terms of— 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Trainer, I think I have time to ask a question before my red 

light goes on. 

How about the Patent Office, could we deny entrepreneurs from 

other countries access to our Patent Office as a sanction to make 

them enforce and respect our property rights? 

Mr. TRAINER. Well, I think there may be a problem just because 

people who are applying for a patent, if they fit within the framework of the legal requirements to obtain a patent, we would need 

to have some other mechanism as a penalty with our trading partners. 

So, under the current scheme, we probably could not without additional legislation. 

Senator SPECTER. We could change the law. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. We have been joined by our distinguished 

Chairman, Senator Hatch. 

First, Senator Hatch, I think there is an interest in knowing how 

your back is. And with an operation last week, how could he be on 

the bench here so early? 

Senator LEAHY. I do not know why you are not back home resting. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, I have been trying to rest, but it is tough 

to get over two back operations in 6 months. So I am a little bit 

behind the curve right now. But do you mind if I ask just one question? 

Senator SPECTER. No, take all of the time you want. 

34

Chairman HATCH. First of all, I want to thank the distinguished 

Senator from Pennsylvania and my friend from Vermont for holding this hearing. It is a very, very important hearing, as you all 

know. These are some of the most interesting aspects to me as 

well. So I am grateful to all of you for being here and to the prior 

panel for being here as well. 

Let me just ask you a question, Mr. Willard, because it is a question that I am very concerned about, and that is the health and 

safety implications of various product counterfeiting. The health 

and safety ramifications are very profound, and yet most of the information that is presented seems anecdotal, at least to me. 

Now, are there efforts being made to quantify the impact of product counterfeiting on health and safety, to the best of your knowledge, or anybody else on the panel who would are to answer that 

as well. 

Mr. WILLARD. As I understand it, Members of Congress tried to 

get the Department of Commerce to do a more rigorous study of 

this problem a couple of years ago, and they have failed to set aside 

the money to do so. And you are right, most of the evidence we 

have is anecdotal or involves numbers that are based on estimates 

rather than rigorous statistically valid market sampling and analysis, That is expensive to do, but we certainly think it would be appropriate for Congress to designate money and try to get that kind 

of study done by the Commerce Department or some other appropriate agency. 

Chairman HATCH. I think we ought to try and work on that because that is important. 

Does anybody else care to comment? 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, Senator, you know when you see the smoke, 

we might have a new pope, and when you find brake pads made 

out of sawdust, when you find one of the major pharmaceutical 

companies in this country having to call back their cholesterol 

drugs, when you find airplane parts that have been made in ways 

that will not stand the tension and the wear and tear, when you 

find, as Mr. Willard talked about, batteries that blow up, I mean, 

wow, that is anecdotal. If you find one, you can believe there are 

10 or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000. 

What we are going to try and do is to get people to understand 

that this is going on, where it is going on and what it is costing 

people, physically, economically and personally. I think what we 

need to do is follow the anecdotes, and that is what we are going 

to try and do. 

One of the things Senator Specter mentioned about using 

Interpol and others, you know, I ask one question. I visit all around 

the world, and people, you know, the leaders of countries say, 

‘‘Now, we are working on this, Mr. Donohue.’’ 

I say, ‘‘Good. Let me just ask you what court in your country do 

I take my complaint to?’’ 

Well, when they do not have one or when the one that they have 

is not as open as you might find in Hong Kong, then you have to 

ask the second question, ‘‘Okay. I accept that, but to what power 

do we go to try and get some pressure put on this issue?’’ 

Anyway, I appreciate the question, and what we are going to do 

is try and find out some more of the answer. 

35

Chairman HATCH. I want to thank my friend from Vermont, 

again, for allowing me to interrupt him. I had not thought about 

that, and I apologize to you. 

Could I ask just one more question of Mr. Donohue? 

Opponents of intellectual property protection have begun arguing 

in the international arena that strong intellectual property protections will impose American capitalism and American culture upon 

other Nations. Now, I find such arguments disingenuous at best. I 

believe that Nations who respect intellectual property rights will 

expand their domestic economies, tax bases, industries and native 

cultural institutions far beyond, and far more effectively, than if 

they allow untaxable black markets, if you will, in pirated goods—

American goods, in particular—to flourish. 

Now, can the Chamber help to coordinate, with our intellectual 

property owners, to make sure that our Government policy owners 

or policymakers are apprised of the ‘‘success stories’’ of other Governments that have expanded their own economies, fought corruption, and built their own domestic industries by cracking down on 

intellectual property theft? 

That might be an area where— 

Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Senator. Before you came in, I 

thanked Senator Specter for coming down to the kickoff of our 

major, long-term effort on addressing these issues. And part of 

what we are attempting to do is to join with other countries and 

to highlight, to intercept and to make very, very difficult a culture 

that allows and condones this type of behavior. And, by the way, 

there are Nations, some of which have been mentioned here and 

others who have not, where it is a cultural issue. I mean, it is entrepreneurial. We saw how they made it down the street, so we will 

come over here, we will make it, and we can—and some of them, 

by the way, one of the problems with some of the counterfeiting, 

it is damn good, but everybody is being cut out of the system. And 

I want to assure you— 

Senator LEAHY. It is, also, if I might, it is very, very good because they have not had to do any of the development work— 

Mr. DONOHUE. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. —do any of the other things— 

Mr. DONOHUE. They do not have any of the liability coverage, but 

when I say it is ‘‘good,’’ I know in one instance they had to bring 

the people from Microsoft all the way from Washington to tell 

which one was which. 

But, Senator, I want to assure you that one of the things we are 

going to do is push that, and, quite frankly, I do not care what your 

culture is. If you are stealing American products, and American 

technology, and American profits, and American taxes, then you 

have got a problem. Good luck. 

Chairman HATCH. I agree with you. I think the Chamber can 

help us in this regard, and of course we want to do everything we 

possibly can. I have been all over the world and encouraged people 

to not steal intellectual property, and in particular the Chinese, 

just to mention one country, in particular, and I have had mixed 

results. 

I have had everyone say they will, but mixed results with regard 

to follow-through. 

36

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, we will try and make the noise as loud as 

we can to see if we can get a little more response, and we will look 

for your help. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Of course, Senator Specter is raring to go, and I 

am sure Senator Leahy is as well. There are some things you can 

do to help here, and I think we need to start at home. We need 

to go after, as our friends from the music industry and others indicated, we can send a very loud message by doing the domestic 

thing right. There have been a few people who have gone to jail, 

but this is a slap on a wrist and a civil fine, usually. We need to 

get this real ugly. And then when we can demonstrate what we are 

doing at home, it is going to be a lot easier for us to be tough 

abroad. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. 

I thank my colleagues. 

Senator SPECTER. Senator Leahy? 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, too, Chairman Hatch. It is good to 

see you back. We have all been worried about you, but Senator 

Specter assured us all here earlier that you are up and about. You 

are tougher than the rest of us. And I will explain later to you 

about Mr. Donohue’s white smoke and the pope. I am the one expert on this panel. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DONOHUE. It is the same way they do it in Utah. 

Chairman HATCH. Yes, I am fully aware. 

Senator LEAHY. I will fill you in more. 

I did want to say that when Pope John Paul was installed, shortly after his installation, President Carter—I was down at the White 

House—and he was saying he had sent every Italian American in 

the Congress over for that. 

I said, ‘‘Wait a minute. What about me? You did not send me,’’ 

realizing my mother was first-generation Italian American. 

He got very apologetic, and he said, ‘‘Do not worry. Next pope 

you go.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Great. They are usually there for 20, 30 years.’’ Unfortunately, in that case, 3 weeks later there was another pope, and he 

kept his word. 

Mr. Donohue, I do not want to go into too much of this, but you 

made a very good point earlier. You said there are a lot of things 

we can do. I mean, you cannot just take automatic unilateral action 

against China, using that as an example, and I agree with you. I 

have been over to China many times in the negotiations on everything from arms control to economic matters. It becomes a long and 

careful dance. 

But you also said the Chamber is willing to take some very tough 

steps. I wish you might answer, for the record, to the extent you 

can, what some of those steps might be. I would be very interested 

in hearing from you or to me privately, if you would prefer. 

Mr. DONOHUE. Well, I will make some public comments, and 

then perhaps we might have a chat one time about some other 

things we would like to do. 

37

First of all, as I said, I think if we start at home with people that 

are counterfeiting and bringing counterfeit goods into the country, 

knowingly, I think we send a very loud message. 

Second, I think the gentlemen that were on the first panel have 

to continue to be encouraged to use the tools of Government, which 

we will encourage them to do, in a thoughtful and a unified way 

to send a loud message around the world. And one of the ways you 

do that is by making examples of people that you can catch and 

prosecute, highlight, and you know— 

Senator LEAHY. I agree with all of those things, and I have stated all of those myself, but I want to know some specific actions that 

we can take if we still face basically a stonewall in a lot of the Chinese counterfeiting, which still is a very, very significant part of 

what we face. 

I am going to have to ask—only because I want to go to some 

of the others—I am going to have to ask you to answer that— 

Mr. DONOHUE. I will answer it in one sentence. 

Senator LEAHY. Go ahead. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I would like to use all of the persuasive and pressure tactics we could before we go to 301, but this thing is getting 

so big, it is going up about a quarter of a billion dollars every year, 

if we do not put some stop on this, we are going to be talking about 

some very draconian action. 

Senator LEAHY. Would that include 301, eventually, if nothing 

else works? 

Mr. DONOHUE. If nothing else works, we are not going to have 

a choice. This is going to be more expensive than the issue we debate all the time, which is on the cost of the Nation’s legal system. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Buckles, you have had 30 years of public service, and 

I commend you for it, at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I am going to give you some questions, which I will submit 

to you for the record, regarding the resources that we have here. 

And I would be interested in getting your responses back. They will 

be part of the record, but I am particularly interested in that. 

Mr. Willard, just before we started—we did not have time to 

really go much into it—I talked about a speech I gave at Georgetown this morning, Georgetown Law School, about radio frequency 

identification, RFIDs. That is these tiny, tiny computer chips—I 

mean, they are tiny. They are smaller than the end of that pen—

they can store information, and they respond to radio signals. We 

can use them in identifying, tracking and authenticating goods. 

Gillette has actually used them in marketing at WalMart, where 

if somebody picks up an item that has got one of those, it triggers 

a camera that goes to a person that is usually watching at a place 

700 or 800 miles away. 

Could this be something that could also be used in piracy? I 

mean, the more of these you use, and you are getting them down 

to the price of 2 or 3 cents apiece. Is this something that could be 

used in piracy? 

Mr. WILLARD. It certainly could, Senator. That is something we 

have identified as one of the strategic benefits of the RFID chip 

when it is used on consumer products. 

38

Just to make it clear what our company’s approach is in this 

area, is initially to use it at the case and pallet level in the supply 

chain between the manufacturer and the stores for inventory management and that sort of thing. Before it is implemented on a widescale basis at the consumer level, we are strongly committed to 

making sure consumer privacy is protected in the way it is done. 

But this could help to overcome the problem that we have heard 

about, which is that counterfeiters are getting so good it is hard to 

recognize what is real and what is fake. These chips could do that 

for you and greatly enhance enforcement capability. 

Senator LEAHY. I am thinking of things that Mr. Trainer talked 

about, some of the problems with brake pads, things like that. 

When I am going to pay for what I think is, if I am buying a brake 

pad for my car, I am going to pay for something which I assume 

the manufacturer recommends. It is high quality. If I hit those 

brakes, I want it to stop. 

I would think, Mr. Trainer, that sometimes mechanics might 

have difficulty, following what Mr. Willard has said, is this fake or 

is this real; is that not true? 

Mr. TRAINER. Well, I think with the kind of technology you are 

talking about, the question really becomes can a counterfeiter still 

make these types of products and somehow get it into some type 

of a retail outlet so that he bypasses the authorized distribution 

channels? 

Of course, that is always going to be possible. So it really becomes this issue of companies, and their suppliers and manufacturers really pressing their distribution channels so that people are 

actually looking and being forced really to buy authentic merchandise. 

Senator LEAHY. Ms. Price, in your testimony, I remember one 

time getting on a plane, I believe it was in Chicago, and Jake Burton was getting on there, and he was showing me a new ski boot 

for snowboarding. It is somewhat different gear than they are from 

skiing. He spent a lot of time and a lot of effort to design it and 

make it the best, and the safest and so forth. 

He and I were sitting back in coach. He said, ‘‘You see that guy 

that just got up in First Class? He is one of the ones that goes to 

China and rips off, just copies mine. He does not have to pay any 

development. He does not have to do any of the work. He does not 

have to do any of the trial and error. He can afford to fly First 

Class. I am the one that is actually creating the jobs here in America. I am the one doing all of the work.’’ He said, ‘‘Pat, I am glad 

to see we are back here together.’’ 

Let me show you one thing. This, I am told—I just happen to 

have this knockoff of one of your jackets. If that is in a store, look 

at it as you walk in, that would look like one of yours, would it not? 

Ms. PRICE. It would look like one of ours. Just because I work 

for the company, I know it is not. But if I was a consumer, either 

that fleece or I have several others, and many more in my office, 

these are not actual Burton fleeces, not designs we use, but they 

have been made, and made very well, and our name has been put 

on them. So it is very confusing. 

Senator LEAHY. But you had to bring—I mean, I have been in 

the factory. I see your designers go in there, and they might spend 

39

a couple days trying one design. No, it does not look right. Try another design. It does not look right. They bring people in, and they 

test, and they throw things away. They finally get something that 

really works, they spent a lot of time doing it. 

Ms. PRICE. Oh, yes, absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. My youngest son snowboards. We also go 

paragliding together. Mr. Donohue, see there is hope that you may 

end up getting a Republican seat in Vermont after all if I keep 

doing this, and sky diving and things like that with him. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LEAHY. But he likes the Burton things, and this is not 

a paid ad for you, but he just happens to like it, and he looks for 

that brand, partly for safety, but he assumes, when he picks it up, 

that is what he is getting. 

I had a couple of other questions that you actually answered before, so I am not going to ask more. But I just want to say thank 

you for coming down. But I would also point out—and this goes to 

what Senator Specter quite appropriately asked—you are a very 

small company. Gillette is a very large company and will have a 

significant Legal Department to go after counterfeiters. It does not 

mean you are going to get them all or anything else. But I suspect 

that their Legal Department is probably bigger than the whole 

headquarters of Burton. And it is not just Burton, but there are a 

whole lot of other people that make something unique. They may 

be a cottage industry, but their uniqueness becomes cachet in that 

industry, and they are hard-pressed. 

I would assume, to the extent that you can get some of these 

Government agencies that talked before to help you in going after 

counterfeiters, you are a lot better off; is that correct? 

Ms. PRICE. Absolutely. 

Senator LEAHY. And I am not suggesting, Mr. Willard, that your 

company should not either. They should be helping all of you. 

Thank you very much. I thank all of you. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Donohue, Mr. Willard, Mr. Buckles, Ms. Price, and Mr. Trainer. 

I think that the exploration of the two panels has been very informative, and we intend to follow up in a number of particulars. 

I will be introducing the legislation that Mr. Willard looks at the 

loopholes, as he has articulated them. We will keep a relationship 

with China, but we may have to go to 301, maybe not to revoke 

Most Favored Nation status, but they will hear about the hearing 

today. They monitor our proceedings very, very closely. When we 

put in a little resolution about our— 

Senator LEAHY. You may have a call from the Chinese Ambassador by the time you get back to your office. 

Mr. DONOHUE. I hear from him all of the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. When we put in a little resolution about the 

Dickinson librarian, I got a call from the Chinese Ambassador to 

the United States, and we got him out. A little appropriate pressure goes a long way. 

Without objection, we will put in the statement by Senator 

Cornyn, and that concludes the hearing. 

Thank you all very much. 

40

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

41


98207.001
42


98207.002
43


98207.003
44


98207.004
45


98207.005
46


98207.006
47


98207.007
48


98207.008
49


98207.009
50


98207.010
51


98207.011
52


98207.012
53


98207.013
54


98207.014
55


98207.015
56


98207.016
57


98207.017
58


98207.018
59


98207.019
60


98207.020
61


98207.021
62


98207.022
63


98207.023
64


98207.024
65


98207.025
66


98207.026
67


98207.027
68


98207.028
69


98207.029
70


98207.030
71


98207.031
72


98207.032
73


98207.033
74


98207.034
75


98207.035
76


98207.036
77


98207.037
78


98207.038
79


98207.039
80


98207.040
81


98207.041
82


98207.042
83


98207.043
84


98207.044
85


98207.045
86


98207.046
87


98207.047
88


98207.048
89


98207.049
90


98207.050
91


98207.051
92


98207.052
93


98207.053
94


98207.054
95


98207.055
96


98207.056
97


98207.057
98


98207.058
99


98207.059
100


98207.060
101


98207.061
102


98207.062
103


98207.063
104


98207.064
105


98207.065
106


98207.066
107


98207.067
108


98207.068
109


98207.069
110


98207.070
111


98207.071
112


98207.072
113


98207.073
114


98207.074
115


98207.075
116


98207.076
117


98207.077
118


98207.078
119


98207.079
120


98207.080
121


98207.081
122


98207.082
123


98207.083
124


98207.084
125


98207.085
126


98207.086
127


98207.087
128


98207.088
129


98207.089
130


98207.090
131


98207.091
132


98207.092
133


98207.093
134


98207.094
135


98207.095
136


98207.096
137


98207.097
138


98207.098
139


98207.099
140


98207.100
141


98207.175
142


98207.103
143


98207.104
144


98207.105
145


98207.106
146


98207.107
147


98207.108
148


98207.109
149


98207.110
150


98207.111
151


98207.112
152


98207.113
153


98207.114
154


98207.115
155


98207.116
156


98207.117
157


98207.118
158


98207.119
159


98207.120
160


98207.121
161


98207.122
162


98207.123
163


98207.124
164


98207.128
165


98207.129
166


98207.125
167


98207.126
168


98207.127
169


98207.130
170


98207.131
171


98207.132
172


98207.133
173


98207.134
174


98207.135
175


98207.136
176


98207.137
177


98207.138
178


98207.139
179


98207.140
180


98207.141
181


98207.142
182


98207.143
183


98207.144
184


98207.145
185


98207.146
186


98207.147
187


98207.148
188


98207.149
189


98207.150
190


98207.151
191


98207.152
192


98207.153
193


98207.154
194


98207.155
195


98207.156
196


98207.157
197


98207.158
198


98207.159
199


98207.160
200


98207.161
201


98207.162
202


98207.163
203


98207.164
204


98207.165
205


98207.166
206


98207.167
207


98207.168
208


98207.169
209


98207.170
210


98207.171
211


98207.172
212


98207.173
213

Æ


98207.174