Congress needs to “instruct” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to bring a World Trade Organization case for violating WTO rules against unfair trade practices, testified Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Rob Atkinson Wednesday before the House IT Oversight Subcommittee. Congress should “take a hard line on limiting most Chinese investment” in the U.S., including in Chinese-backed “tech accelerators,” said Atkinson. He urged limiting “ongoing science and technology cooperation” with China, "especially considering that much of that cooperation is lopsided,” he said. The Trump administration placed Trade Act Section 301 tariffs “on a wide array of Chinese exports in an effort to bring the Chinese government to the negotiating table,” said Atkinson. “It is not clear if this approach will succeed.” The “most important step” the U.S. can take is develop a “joint campaign with our allies” to curb bad Chinese behavior, he said, to make "it more likely that China feels like it has no choice but to play more by the rules.”

Congress needs to “instruct” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to bring a World Trade Organization case for violating WTO rules against unfair trade practices, testified Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Rob Atkinson Wednesday before the House IT Oversight Subcommittee. Congress should “take a hard line on limiting most Chinese investment” in the U.S., including in Chinese-backed “tech accelerators,” said Atkinson. He urged limiting “ongoing science and technology cooperation” with China, "especially considering that much of that cooperation is lopsided,” he said. The Trump administration placed Trade Act Section 301 tariffs “on a wide array of Chinese exports in an effort to bring the Chinese government to the negotiating table,” said Atkinson. “It is not clear if this approach will succeed.” The “most important step” the U.S. can take is develop a “joint campaign with our allies” to curb bad Chinese behavior, he said, to make "it more likely that China feels like it has no choice but to play more by the rules.”

Congress needs to “instruct” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to bring a World Trade Organization case for violating WTO rules against unfair trade practices, testified Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Rob Atkinson Wednesday before the House IT Oversight Subcommittee. Congress should “take a hard line on limiting most Chinese investment” in the U.S., including in Chinese-backed “tech accelerators,” said Atkinson. He urged limiting “ongoing science and technology cooperation” with China, "especially considering that much of that cooperation is lopsided,” he said. The Trump administration placed Trade Act Section 301 tariffs “on a wide array of Chinese exports in an effort to bring the Chinese government to the negotiating table,” said Atkinson. “It is not clear if this approach will succeed.” The “most important step” the U.S. can take is develop a “joint campaign with our allies” to curb bad Chinese behavior, he said, to make "it more likely that China feels like it has no choice but to play more by the rules.”

DOJ and 14 state attorneys general offices discussed “ways the department and state governments can most effectively safeguard consumers using online digital platforms,” Justice said. The topic of the Tuesday meeting evolved over time (see 1809210047), after President Donald Trump attacked online platforms for alleged conservative bias and threatened antitrust action. “The discussion principally focused on consumer protection and data privacy issues,” Justice said. Those attending included Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, Acting Associate AG Jesse Panuccio and Assistant AG Makan Delrahim. State officials included Alabama AG Steve Marshall, California AG Xavier Becerra, District of Columbia AG Karl Racine, Maryland AG Brian Frosh and Mississippi AG Jim Hood, all Democrats, and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry, Nebraska AG Doug Peterson, Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery and Utah AG Sean Reyes, all Republicans. AG offices from Arkansas, Arizona, Missouri, Texas and Washington sent staff. A federal probe of online platforms would be “inappropriate, undermine the free speech rights of tech platforms and ultimately do a disservice to consumers,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation wrote in USA Today. “These businesses have no incentive to inject bias in their platforms, because consumers across the political spectrum use social media and discriminating against any of them could drive people away,” wrote ITIF Vice President Daniel Castro and Research Assistant Michael McLaughlin. Delrahim at a separate appearance Tuesday on antitrust efforts committed Justice to “accelerating the pace of merger review consistent with enforcing the law because we believe that doing so is good for American consumers and taxpayers.”

DOJ and 14 state attorneys general offices discussed “ways the department and state governments can most effectively safeguard consumers using online digital platforms,” Justice said. The topic of the Tuesday meeting evolved over time (see 1809210047), after President Donald Trump attacked online platforms for alleged conservative bias and threatened antitrust action. “The discussion principally focused on consumer protection and data privacy issues,” Justice said. Those attending included Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, Acting Associate AG Jesse Panuccio and Assistant AG Makan Delrahim. State officials included Alabama AG Steve Marshall, California AG Xavier Becerra, District of Columbia AG Karl Racine, Maryland AG Brian Frosh and Mississippi AG Jim Hood, all Democrats, and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry, Nebraska AG Doug Peterson, Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery and Utah AG Sean Reyes, all Republicans. AG offices from Arkansas, Arizona, Missouri, Texas and Washington sent staff. A federal probe of online platforms would be “inappropriate, undermine the free speech rights of tech platforms and ultimately do a disservice to consumers,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation wrote in USA Today. “These businesses have no incentive to inject bias in their platforms, because consumers across the political spectrum use social media and discriminating against any of them could drive people away,” wrote ITIF Vice President Daniel Castro and Research Assistant Michael McLaughlin. Delrahim at a separate appearance Tuesday on antitrust efforts committed Justice to “accelerating the pace of merger review consistent with enforcing the law because we believe that doing so is good for American consumers and taxpayers.”

DOJ and 14 state attorneys general offices discussed “ways the department and state governments can most effectively safeguard consumers using online digital platforms,” Justice said. The topic of the Tuesday meeting evolved over time (see 1809210047), after President Donald Trump attacked online platforms for alleged conservative bias and threatened antitrust action. “The discussion principally focused on consumer protection and data privacy issues,” Justice said. Those attending included Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, Acting Associate AG Jesse Panuccio and Assistant AG Makan Delrahim. State officials included Alabama AG Steve Marshall, California AG Xavier Becerra, District of Columbia AG Karl Racine, Maryland AG Brian Frosh and Mississippi AG Jim Hood, all Democrats, and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry, Nebraska AG Doug Peterson, Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery and Utah AG Sean Reyes, all Republicans. AG offices from Arkansas, Arizona, Missouri, Texas and Washington sent staff. A federal probe of online platforms would be “inappropriate, undermine the free speech rights of tech platforms and ultimately do a disservice to consumers,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation wrote in USA Today. “These businesses have no incentive to inject bias in their platforms, because consumers across the political spectrum use social media and discriminating against any of them could drive people away,” wrote ITIF Vice President Daniel Castro and Research Assistant Michael McLaughlin. Delrahim at a separate appearance Tuesday on antitrust efforts committed Justice to “accelerating the pace of merger review consistent with enforcing the law because we believe that doing so is good for American consumers and taxpayers.”

The Trump administration’s proposed Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on a third tranche of Chinese goods worth about $200 billion in customs value “would target many key components that make cloud computing possible,” reported the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The administration “in theory” initiated the tariffs to “counteract unfair Chinese trade practices and improve U.S. competitiveness,” said ITIF. “But their practical effect would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing, and stunting U.S. economic growth,” it said. Though Chinese “innovation mercantilism” is a “laudable and necessary mission,” the administration needs to “seek alternative policy measures that do not raise the cost of key productivity -- and innovation-enhancing capital goods and services such as information technology and cloud computing,” it said. ITIF fears that tariffs would raise prices for businesses and consumers and force cloud-service providers to cut costs through job reductions or curtail spending on new data centers or the R&D “needed to stay ahead of international competitors,” it said. It also worries that cloud providers “may be forced to invest elsewhere to remain competitive,” it said. Tariffs also “threaten to disrupt finely crafted global supply chains for the manufacture of information-technology products,” it said. Those supply chains can’t “easily be reinvented in the short term without significant detriment to, and dislocation of, U.S. industry,” it said.

The Trump administration’s proposed Section 301 tariffs on a third tranche of Chinese goods worth about $200 billion in customs value “would target many key components that make cloud computing possible,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation reported on Sept. 4. The administration “in theory” initiated the tariffs to “counteract unfair Chinese trade practices and improve U.S. competitiveness,” ITIF said. “But their practical effect would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing, and stunting U.S. economic growth,” it said. Though “contesting Chinese innovation mercantilism” is a “laudable and necessary mission,” the administration needs to “seek alternative policy measures that do not raise the cost of key productivity -- and innovation-enhancing capital goods and services such as information technology and cloud computing,” it said. ITIF fears that tariffs would raise prices for businesses and consumers and force cloud-service providers to cut costs through job reductions or curtail spending on new data centers or the research and development “needed to stay ahead of international competitors,” it said. It also worries that cloud providers “may be forced to invest elsewhere to remain competitive,” it said. Tariffs also “threaten to disrupt finely crafted global supply chains for the manufacture of information-technology products,” it said. Those supply chains can’t “easily be reinvented in the short term without significant detriment to, and dislocation of, U.S. industry,” it said.

The Trump administration’s proposed Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on a third tranche of Chinese goods worth about $200 billion in customs value “would target many key components that make cloud computing possible,” reported the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The administration “in theory” initiated the tariffs to “counteract unfair Chinese trade practices and improve U.S. competitiveness,” said ITIF. “But their practical effect would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing, and stunting U.S. economic growth,” it said. Though Chinese “innovation mercantilism” is a “laudable and necessary mission,” the administration needs to “seek alternative policy measures that do not raise the cost of key productivity -- and innovation-enhancing capital goods and services such as information technology and cloud computing,” it said. ITIF fears that tariffs would raise prices for businesses and consumers and force cloud-service providers to cut costs through job reductions or curtail spending on new data centers or the R&D “needed to stay ahead of international competitors,” it said. It also worries that cloud providers “may be forced to invest elsewhere to remain competitive,” it said. Tariffs also “threaten to disrupt finely crafted global supply chains for the manufacture of information-technology products,” it said. Those supply chains can’t “easily be reinvented in the short term without significant detriment to, and dislocation of, U.S. industry,” it said.

The Trump administration’s proposed Trade Act Section 301 tariffs on a third tranche of Chinese goods worth about $200 billion in customs value “would target many key components that make cloud computing possible,” reported the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Tuesday. The administration “in theory” initiated the tariffs to “counteract unfair Chinese trade practices and improve U.S. competitiveness,” said ITIF. “But their practical effect would be to advantage foreign technology competitors, thereby threatening U.S. leadership in both the adoption and provision of cloud computing, and stunting U.S. economic growth,” it said. Though Chinese “innovation mercantilism” is a “laudable and necessary mission,” the administration needs to “seek alternative policy measures that do not raise the cost of key productivity -- and innovation-enhancing capital goods and services such as information technology and cloud computing,” it said. ITIF fears that tariffs would raise prices for businesses and consumers and force cloud-service providers to cut costs through job reductions or curtail spending on new data centers or the R&D “needed to stay ahead of international competitors,” it said. It also worries that cloud providers “may be forced to invest elsewhere to remain competitive,” it said. Tariffs also “threaten to disrupt finely crafted global supply chains for the manufacture of information-technology products,” it said. Those supply chains can’t “easily be reinvented in the short term without significant detriment to, and dislocation of, U.S. industry,” it said.