Opposing the expansion of rights is a weakening of IPR, which means the inverse must also be true.

Second, weak IP will not help the rest of the world in the moderate to long term because it would reduce the incentives and resources needed for innovation to help solve global challenges. Climate change requires much better and cleaner technology. Giving U.S. clean energy IP to developing nation hurts that task, not helps it. The world needs not just drug access, but much better drugs. Weak IP hurts that. Great content—in the form of movies, books, music, photographs, and more—depends on IP.

Arguing that IP is archaic and irrelevant in the digital age and that strong IP hurts the third-world “proletariat” while only helping U.S. “capitalists,” many policymakers have succumbed to a view that supports weakening IPR and opposes expanding existing rights.

As policymakers seek to preserve and advance America’s lead in a range of advanced industries, especially vis- à-vis China, they should be strengthening U.S. commitment to strong IP protection, including fighting to protect U.S. innovators and creators from IP theft.2 Without that, a key tool in protecting U.S. advanced industry leadership will be tossed away.