Hiroyuki Odagiri, Akira Goto, Atsushi Sunami, and Richard R. Nelson (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.001.0001
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
Economic development involves a process of catching up with leading countries at the time. Catch‐up is never achieved by investment in physical assets alone: also needed are the learning of modern ...
More
Economic development involves a process of catching up with leading countries at the time. Catch‐up is never achieved by investment in physical assets alone: also needed are the learning of modern technologies and accumulation of a country's own technological capabilities. Nevertheless, most literature on economic development has paid scant attention to this technological aspect of catch‐up or at best assumed that developing countries can simply take advantage of the backlog of technologies practiced in advanced countries. Despite this assumption catch‐up can only occur with significant efforts and capacity. Moreover, the speed of catch‐up depends not just on the technological distance from the leaders but also on the country's social capability and legal, economic, and scientific institutions. One such institution is the regime of intellectual property rights (IPR), particularly patents. Patents may promote innovation and technology transfer. Yet they may prove to be barriers for developing countries that intend to acquire technologies through imitation and reverse‐engineering. Therefore, the current move to harmonize the IPR system internationally, such as the TRIPS agreement, may have unexpected consequences on developing countries. This book explores this issue through an in‐depth study of ten countries and one region, ranging from early developing countries (USA, Nordic countries, and Japan) and post‐World War II developing countries (Korea, Taiwan, and Israel) to more recent developing countries (Argentine, Brazil, China, India, and Thailand). These studies clearly indicate that the impact of IPR is complex and significantly varies across industries and across development stages.Less
Economic development involves a process of catching up with leading countries at the time. Catch‐up is never achieved by investment in physical assets alone: also needed are the learning of modern technologies and accumulation of a country's own technological capabilities. Nevertheless, most literature on economic development has paid scant attention to this technological aspect of catch‐up or at best assumed that developing countries can simply take advantage of the backlog of technologies practiced in advanced countries. Despite this assumption catch‐up can only occur with significant efforts and capacity. Moreover, the speed of catch‐up depends not just on the technological distance from the leaders but also on the country's social capability and legal, economic, and scientific institutions. One such institution is the regime of intellectual property rights (IPR), particularly patents. Patents may promote innovation and technology transfer. Yet they may prove to be barriers for developing countries that intend to acquire technologies through imitation and reverse‐engineering. Therefore, the current move to harmonize the IPR system internationally, such as the TRIPS agreement, may have unexpected consequences on developing countries. This book explores this issue through an in‐depth study of ten countries and one region, ranging from early developing countries (USA, Nordic countries, and Japan) and post‐World War II developing countries (Korea, Taiwan, and Israel) to more recent developing countries (Argentine, Brazil, China, India, and Thailand). These studies clearly indicate that the impact of IPR is complex and significantly varies across industries and across development stages.
Brett M. Frischmann
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199895656
- eISBN:
- 9780199933280
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199895656.003.0013
- Subject:
- Law, Environmental and Energy Law
This chapter explores how infrastructure theory applies to cultural-intellectual resources and delineates a class of infrastructure referred to as intellectual infrastructure. It is organized into ...
More
This chapter explores how infrastructure theory applies to cultural-intellectual resources and delineates a class of infrastructure referred to as intellectual infrastructure. It is organized into four sections. It begins in Section A with the idea of the cultural environment as infrastructure. Section B describes the economic characteristics of intellectual resources. Section C focuses on applying the infrastructure criteria to delineate intellectual infrastructure. Section D considers intellectual property laws. It examines intellectual property laws as a semi-commons regime and compares it to the regulatory semi-commons discussed in the previous chapter.Less
This chapter explores how infrastructure theory applies to cultural-intellectual resources and delineates a class of infrastructure referred to as intellectual infrastructure. It is organized into four sections. It begins in Section A with the idea of the cultural environment as infrastructure. Section B describes the economic characteristics of intellectual resources. Section C focuses on applying the infrastructure criteria to delineate intellectual infrastructure. Section D considers intellectual property laws. It examines intellectual property laws as a semi-commons regime and compares it to the regulatory semi-commons discussed in the previous chapter.
Carolyn Deere
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199550616
- eISBN:
- 9780191720284
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199550616.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics, Political Economy
In the 1990s, the fight between North and South over intellectual property (IP) reached new heights. The result was the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) deeply contested agreement on Trade‐Related ...
More
In the 1990s, the fight between North and South over intellectual property (IP) reached new heights. The result was the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) deeply contested agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Widely resented by developing countries, TRIPS nonetheless permits them some hard‐won flexibility. Puzzling, however, is why some developing countries have used that flexibility and others have not. Even more curious is that despite securing some extra concessions, many of the poorest countries have made least use of them. For scholars of international political economy and law, this book is the first detailed exploration of the links between global IP politics and the implementation of IP reforms. It exposes how power politics occur not just within global trade talks but afterwards when countries implement agreements. For developing countries, TRIPS did not end the IP offensive. At the urging of lobbyists from large multinational companies, powerful countries backtracked on the flexibilities in TRIPS and pursued even stronger global IP rules. To prevent precedents for weaker IP standards in poorer countries, they issued threats to market access, aid, investment, and political alliances. Further, they used new trade deals and, more subtly, ‘capacity‐building’ (assisted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, among others) to leverage faster compliance and higher standards than TRIPS requires. Meanwhile, ‘pro‐development’ advocates from civil society, other UN agencies, and developing countries worked to counter ‘compliance‐plus’ pressures and defend the use of TRIPS flexibilities, sometimes with success. Within developing countries, most governments had little experience of IP law. They often deferred TRIPS implementation to IP offices cut‐off from trade politics and national policymaking, making them more vulnerable to the TRIPS‐plus agenda. In francophone Africa, regional IP arrangements magnified this effect.Less
In the 1990s, the fight between North and South over intellectual property (IP) reached new heights. The result was the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) deeply contested agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Widely resented by developing countries, TRIPS nonetheless permits them some hard‐won flexibility. Puzzling, however, is why some developing countries have used that flexibility and others have not. Even more curious is that despite securing some extra concessions, many of the poorest countries have made least use of them. For scholars of international political economy and law, this book is the first detailed exploration of the links between global IP politics and the implementation of IP reforms. It exposes how power politics occur not just within global trade talks but afterwards when countries implement agreements. For developing countries, TRIPS did not end the IP offensive. At the urging of lobbyists from large multinational companies, powerful countries backtracked on the flexibilities in TRIPS and pursued even stronger global IP rules. To prevent precedents for weaker IP standards in poorer countries, they issued threats to market access, aid, investment, and political alliances. Further, they used new trade deals and, more subtly, ‘capacity‐building’ (assisted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, among others) to leverage faster compliance and higher standards than TRIPS requires. Meanwhile, ‘pro‐development’ advocates from civil society, other UN agencies, and developing countries worked to counter ‘compliance‐plus’ pressures and defend the use of TRIPS flexibilities, sometimes with success. Within developing countries, most governments had little experience of IP law. They often deferred TRIPS implementation to IP offices cut‐off from trade politics and national policymaking, making them more vulnerable to the TRIPS‐plus agenda. In francophone Africa, regional IP arrangements magnified this effect.
Hiroyuki Odagiri, Akira Goto, Atsushi Sunami, and Richard R. Nelson
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0001
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter first argues that catch‐up is a complex process and that developing countries rely on diverse means to acquire technologies from advanced countries and build their own capabilities. ...
More
This chapter first argues that catch‐up is a complex process and that developing countries rely on diverse means to acquire technologies from advanced countries and build their own capabilities. Then, after briefly describing the history of the patent and other intellectual property right (IPR) system and the TRIPS agreement, the chapter surveys past studies on the role of IPR, particularly in relation to technology transfer. It is emphasized, however, that to understand the role of IPR in catch‐up an in‐depth analysis of individual countries is essential. The chapter then gives a brief account of the long‐term economic growth record of ten countries and one region (Nordic) that are discussed in this book and summarizes briefly each of the following chapters.Less
This chapter first argues that catch‐up is a complex process and that developing countries rely on diverse means to acquire technologies from advanced countries and build their own capabilities. Then, after briefly describing the history of the patent and other intellectual property right (IPR) system and the TRIPS agreement, the chapter surveys past studies on the role of IPR, particularly in relation to technology transfer. It is emphasized, however, that to understand the role of IPR in catch‐up an in‐depth analysis of individual countries is essential. The chapter then gives a brief account of the long‐term economic growth record of ten countries and one region (Nordic) that are discussed in this book and summarizes briefly each of the following chapters.
Keun Lee and Yee Kyoung Kim
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0005
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Korea, in which the present intellectual property legislation was established in 1961. Three stylized facts are noted about patenting trend: shift ...
More
This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Korea, in which the present intellectual property legislation was established in 1961. Three stylized facts are noted about patenting trend: shift from petty (utility) patents to regular (invention) patents, shift from individual inventors to corporate inventors, and shift of share among patent applications from domestic applicants (when foreigners had little interest in Korean IPRs) to foreign applicants and, in the 1990s, again to domestic applicants. These shifts suggest that Korean firms had accumulated high‐tech capabilities and became sensitive to IPRs by the mid‐1980s. Korean firms, particularly in electronics, invested heavily in R&D to accumulate their own technologies and, having learnt the importance of IPR through a number of patent‐related legal disputes with American and Japanese firms, started to utilize their own IPRs to achieve competitive advantages.Less
This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Korea, in which the present intellectual property legislation was established in 1961. Three stylized facts are noted about patenting trend: shift from petty (utility) patents to regular (invention) patents, shift from individual inventors to corporate inventors, and shift of share among patent applications from domestic applicants (when foreigners had little interest in Korean IPRs) to foreign applicants and, in the 1990s, again to domestic applicants. These shifts suggest that Korean firms had accumulated high‐tech capabilities and became sensitive to IPRs by the mid‐1980s. Korean firms, particularly in electronics, invested heavily in R&D to accumulate their own technologies and, having learnt the importance of IPR through a number of patent‐related legal disputes with American and Japanese firms, started to utilize their own IPRs to achieve competitive advantages.
Patarapong Intarakumnerd and Peera Charoenporn
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0012
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses the case of Thailand and argues that technological learning by firms has been slow and passive owing to three factors: the failure of the educational system to create a strong ...
More
This chapter discusses the case of Thailand and argues that technological learning by firms has been slow and passive owing to three factors: the failure of the educational system to create a strong cadre of technically trained people, the inability of government to develop and enforce policies to enhance Thai firms to develop technological and innovative capabilities, and little pressure on multinationals to build and upgrade their technological and innovative capabilities locally. Thai intellectual property regime was, until the early 1990s, characterized by weak protection and yet it was not pro‐diffusion either. That is, it was not particularly favorable to catch‐up and the lack of preconditions did not help either, for instance, the absence of sufficient indigenous absorptive capacity of firms, the lack of mechanisms or coordinated policy for knowledge diffusion and utilization, and the environment in general not being favorable to innovation.Less
This chapter discusses the case of Thailand and argues that technological learning by firms has been slow and passive owing to three factors: the failure of the educational system to create a strong cadre of technically trained people, the inability of government to develop and enforce policies to enhance Thai firms to develop technological and innovative capabilities, and little pressure on multinationals to build and upgrade their technological and innovative capabilities locally. Thai intellectual property regime was, until the early 1990s, characterized by weak protection and yet it was not pro‐diffusion either. That is, it was not particularly favorable to catch‐up and the lack of preconditions did not help either, for instance, the absence of sufficient indigenous absorptive capacity of firms, the lack of mechanisms or coordinated policy for knowledge diffusion and utilization, and the environment in general not being favorable to innovation.
Hiroyuki Odagiri, Akira Goto, and Atsushi Sunami
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0004
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses the experience of Japan, whose catch‐up efforts started after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 that established the modern central government. It also had the second catch‐up ...
More
This chapter discusses the experience of Japan, whose catch‐up efforts started after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 that established the modern central government. It also had the second catch‐up period after the defeat in World War II. Its patent and other intellectual property laws were enacted during 1884–8. The laws have been modified several times to accommodate increasing applications and changing needs. Japan imported numerous technologies from abroad through licensing, joint ventures, capital participation by foreign firms, and reverse‐engineering. The presence of IPR probably facilitated technology importation and gave incentives for domestic firms to invest in improving imported technology and commercializing it. Yet, there are also cases in which IPR created cost disadvantages or barriers for Japanese firms, such as those of nylon and semiconductors. It is therefore extremely difficult to argue whether IPR helped or deterred Japan's catch‐up.Less
This chapter discusses the experience of Japan, whose catch‐up efforts started after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 that established the modern central government. It also had the second catch‐up period after the defeat in World War II. Its patent and other intellectual property laws were enacted during 1884–8. The laws have been modified several times to accommodate increasing applications and changing needs. Japan imported numerous technologies from abroad through licensing, joint ventures, capital participation by foreign firms, and reverse‐engineering. The presence of IPR probably facilitated technology importation and gave incentives for domestic firms to invest in improving imported technology and commercializing it. Yet, there are also cases in which IPR created cost disadvantages or barriers for Japanese firms, such as those of nylon and semiconductors. It is therefore extremely difficult to argue whether IPR helped or deterred Japan's catch‐up.
Max H. Boisot, Ian C. MacMillan, and Kyeong Seok Han
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199250875
- eISBN:
- 9780191719509
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250875.003.0007
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Knowledge Management
With the growth of the information economy, the proportion of knowledge-intensive goods to total goods is constantly increasing. Lawrence Lessig has argued that IPRs have now become too favourable to ...
More
With the growth of the information economy, the proportion of knowledge-intensive goods to total goods is constantly increasing. Lawrence Lessig has argued that IPRs have now become too favourable to existing producers and that their ‘winner-take-all’ characteristics are constraining the creators of tomorrow. This chapter looks at how variations in IPRs regimes might affect the creation and social cost of new knowledge in economic systems. Drawing on a conceptual framework, the Information Space or I-Space, to explore how the uncontrollable diffusibility of knowledge relates to its degree of structure, this chapter deploys an agent-based modelling approach to the issue of IPRs. It takes the ability to control the diffusibility of knowledge as a proxy measure for an ability to establish property rights in such knowledge. Second, it takes the rate of obsolescence of knowledge as a proxy measure for the degree of turbulence induced by different regimes of technical change. Then, it simulates the quantity and cost to society of new knowledge under different property right regimes.Less
With the growth of the information economy, the proportion of knowledge-intensive goods to total goods is constantly increasing. Lawrence Lessig has argued that IPRs have now become too favourable to existing producers and that their ‘winner-take-all’ characteristics are constraining the creators of tomorrow. This chapter looks at how variations in IPRs regimes might affect the creation and social cost of new knowledge in economic systems. Drawing on a conceptual framework, the Information Space or I-Space, to explore how the uncontrollable diffusibility of knowledge relates to its degree of structure, this chapter deploys an agent-based modelling approach to the issue of IPRs. It takes the ability to control the diffusibility of knowledge as a proxy measure for an ability to establish property rights in such knowledge. Second, it takes the rate of obsolescence of knowledge as a proxy measure for the degree of turbulence induced by different regimes of technical change. Then, it simulates the quantity and cost to society of new knowledge under different property right regimes.
David B. Resnik
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195309782
- eISBN:
- 9780199871285
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195309782.003.0006
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
This chapter describes three types of intellectual property that have an impact on research and development: patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. It examines several views of the intellectual ...
More
This chapter describes three types of intellectual property that have an impact on research and development: patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. It examines several views of the intellectual property system, including libertarianism, utilitarianism, Marxism, and contractarianism. To maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of protecting intellectual property, society should develop intellectual property policies that strike an appropriate balance between public and private interests.Less
This chapter describes three types of intellectual property that have an impact on research and development: patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. It examines several views of the intellectual property system, including libertarianism, utilitarianism, Marxism, and contractarianism. To maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of protecting intellectual property, society should develop intellectual property policies that strike an appropriate balance between public and private interests.
Hsueh‐Liang Wu, Yi‐Chia Chiu, and Ting‐Lin Lee
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0006
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter illustrates how the changing roles of intellectual property right regime affected the technological catch‐up of Taiwan, analyzing the case of three semiconductor‐related sectors: IC ...
More
This chapter illustrates how the changing roles of intellectual property right regime affected the technological catch‐up of Taiwan, analyzing the case of three semiconductor‐related sectors: IC foundry, DRAM, and IC Design. The study shows that Taiwanese semiconductor firms operated within a framework of institutions, comprised of government agencies including research institutions, inter‐firm linkages, and institutional infrastructure including the IPR regime. Based on a case study of the semiconductor industry, it is argued that, when an industry is far from the technological frontier, weak IPR protection fosters technological development by inducing the path‐following catch‐up, whereas when the industry approaches or already has reached the technological frontier, technological development depends more on spillovers facilitated by global networks of firms rather than on coordination of investment. Consequently, the IPR regime needs to be strengthened and international harmonization becomes necessary.Less
This chapter illustrates how the changing roles of intellectual property right regime affected the technological catch‐up of Taiwan, analyzing the case of three semiconductor‐related sectors: IC foundry, DRAM, and IC Design. The study shows that Taiwanese semiconductor firms operated within a framework of institutions, comprised of government agencies including research institutions, inter‐firm linkages, and institutional infrastructure including the IPR regime. Based on a case study of the semiconductor industry, it is argued that, when an industry is far from the technological frontier, weak IPR protection fosters technological development by inducing the path‐following catch‐up, whereas when the industry approaches or already has reached the technological frontier, technological development depends more on spillovers facilitated by global networks of firms rather than on coordination of investment. Consequently, the IPR regime needs to be strengthened and international harmonization becomes necessary.
Roberto Mazzoleni and Luciano Martins Costa Póvoa
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0009
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses Brazil. After a long period of decline, growth spurted during 1950–80 and, in 1968–73, the growth rate reached 11.2 percent. As three case studies illustrate, the patent system ...
More
This chapter discusses Brazil. After a long period of decline, growth spurted during 1950–80 and, in 1968–73, the growth rate reached 11.2 percent. As three case studies illustrate, the patent system mattered little for Brazil's industrial development. The success of two national champions, Embraer (aircraft) and Petrobras (oil drilling), in building world‐class technological capabilities mostly derive from various government policies that promoted them, and the patent system neither helped nor hindered them. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, where the patent system usually plays a more significant role, the 1969 patent law amendment to help domestic firms was not successful. Thus the chapter argues that a coherent government policy, including education policy and trade policy, rather than intellectual property policy, plays a much more significant role in deciding the rate and direction of the development of technological capabilities.Less
This chapter discusses Brazil. After a long period of decline, growth spurted during 1950–80 and, in 1968–73, the growth rate reached 11.2 percent. As three case studies illustrate, the patent system mattered little for Brazil's industrial development. The success of two national champions, Embraer (aircraft) and Petrobras (oil drilling), in building world‐class technological capabilities mostly derive from various government policies that promoted them, and the patent system neither helped nor hindered them. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, where the patent system usually plays a more significant role, the 1969 patent law amendment to help domestic firms was not successful. Thus the chapter argues that a coherent government policy, including education policy and trade policy, rather than intellectual property policy, plays a much more significant role in deciding the rate and direction of the development of technological capabilities.
Lan Xue and Zheng Liang
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0010
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses the catch‐up process of China post‐1949, especially after the initiative of “Open Doors” since 1978. Domestic firms adapted to the intellectual property right system through ...
More
This chapter discusses the catch‐up process of China post‐1949, especially after the initiative of “Open Doors” since 1978. Domestic firms adapted to the intellectual property right system through gradual innovation, especially using utility models, i.e. petty patents. Even though most Chinese firms have not been able to become true innovators, several succeeded in developing innovative capabilities, such as Huawei, a communication equipment manufacturer. The litigation brought by Cisco against Huawei stimulated the formulation and improvement of Huawei's IPR strategy and, gradually, Huawei has developed new collaborative relationships with multinationals. However, this case is rather exceptional and most inventions are carried out by a handful of large firms. China's patent system has played an important role in stimulating innovation for both multinationals and domestic firms even though its net impact on technology transfer and domestic firms' catch‐up is yet unclear.Less
This chapter discusses the catch‐up process of China post‐1949, especially after the initiative of “Open Doors” since 1978. Domestic firms adapted to the intellectual property right system through gradual innovation, especially using utility models, i.e. petty patents. Even though most Chinese firms have not been able to become true innovators, several succeeded in developing innovative capabilities, such as Huawei, a communication equipment manufacturer. The litigation brought by Cisco against Huawei stimulated the formulation and improvement of Huawei's IPR strategy and, gradually, Huawei has developed new collaborative relationships with multinationals. However, this case is rather exceptional and most inventions are carried out by a handful of large firms. China's patent system has played an important role in stimulating innovation for both multinationals and domestic firms even though its net impact on technology transfer and domestic firms' catch‐up is yet unclear.
Adil E. Shamoo and David B. Resnik
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195368246
- eISBN:
- 9780199867615
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368246.003.0009
- Subject:
- Biology, Disease Ecology / Epidemiology, Biochemistry / Molecular Biology
This chapter discusses the history of the intellectual property and its ethical and legal foundations. The chapter provides an overview of the U.S. intellectual property system and discusses patents, ...
More
This chapter discusses the history of the intellectual property and its ethical and legal foundations. The chapter provides an overview of the U.S. intellectual property system and discusses patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and ownership of research data. It also examines some key pieces of intellectual property legislation and intellectual property cases. The chapter also discusses some ethical controversies, such as patents on biological materials.Note: Nothing in this chapter should be taken as a legal advice. Engaging an intellectual property attorney is recommended in the event of contemplating issues related to a patents, copyrights, or trademarks.Less
This chapter discusses the history of the intellectual property and its ethical and legal foundations. The chapter provides an overview of the U.S. intellectual property system and discusses patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and ownership of research data. It also examines some key pieces of intellectual property legislation and intellectual property cases. The chapter also discusses some ethical controversies, such as patents on biological materials.Note: Nothing in this chapter should be taken as a legal advice. Engaging an intellectual property attorney is recommended in the event of contemplating issues related to a patents, copyrights, or trademarks.
Meir Pugatch, Morris Teubal, and Odeda Zlotnick
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0007
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses the experience of Israel. At the time of its independence in 1948, its people came from different parts of the world, providing them with international orientation from the ...
More
This chapter discusses the experience of Israel. At the time of its independence in 1948, its people came from different parts of the world, providing them with international orientation from the beginning. As a result, many of the businesses targeted foreign markets, mainly USA and Europe, and were more concerned with the intellectual property regime in these foreign countries than Israel's own. Together with public support for innovation and military‐related expenditure, some startup firms, mainly in information technologies, grew and succeeded in IPO (initial public offering) or selling themselves. Another successful case is Teva, now the largest generic drug producer. It benefited from the patent law amendment in 1967, which allowed local firms to copy patented drugs if the patent owners did not market them in Israel. This provision was dropped after TRIPS; however, Teva had accumulated process technologies by then.Less
This chapter discusses the experience of Israel. At the time of its independence in 1948, its people came from different parts of the world, providing them with international orientation from the beginning. As a result, many of the businesses targeted foreign markets, mainly USA and Europe, and were more concerned with the intellectual property regime in these foreign countries than Israel's own. Together with public support for innovation and military‐related expenditure, some startup firms, mainly in information technologies, grew and succeeded in IPO (initial public offering) or selling themselves. Another successful case is Teva, now the largest generic drug producer. It benefited from the patent law amendment in 1967, which allowed local firms to copy patented drugs if the patent owners did not market them in Israel. This provision was dropped after TRIPS; however, Teva had accumulated process technologies by then.
Hiroyuki Odagiri, Akira Goto, Atsushi Sunami, and Richard R. Nelson
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0013
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter concludes the book by summarizing the country studies to answer three questions. First, what is needed for catch‐up and how can government policies contribute to it? Second, how has the ...
More
This chapter concludes the book by summarizing the country studies to answer three questions. First, what is needed for catch‐up and how can government policies contribute to it? Second, how has the intellectual property right regime, in particular patents, been related to catch‐up and how should it be? And third, how will the process of catch‐up be affected by the TRIPS agreement? The studies suggest that IPR does affect catch‐up but the effects vary significantly across industries, with pharmaceuticals clearly being the industry most affected by patents whereas, in other industries, it sometimes appears that patents hardly matter. IPR is only one of the factors that influence the speed of catch‐up and other policies, such as education policy, industrial policy, and trade and FDI policy, can be more important. Accordingly, TRIPS may affect some industries, most likely pharmaceuticals, in some countries but otherwise may have little effect.Less
This chapter concludes the book by summarizing the country studies to answer three questions. First, what is needed for catch‐up and how can government policies contribute to it? Second, how has the intellectual property right regime, in particular patents, been related to catch‐up and how should it be? And third, how will the process of catch‐up be affected by the TRIPS agreement? The studies suggest that IPR does affect catch‐up but the effects vary significantly across industries, with pharmaceuticals clearly being the industry most affected by patents whereas, in other industries, it sometimes appears that patents hardly matter. IPR is only one of the factors that influence the speed of catch‐up and other policies, such as education policy, industrial policy, and trade and FDI policy, can be more important. Accordingly, TRIPS may affect some industries, most likely pharmaceuticals, in some countries but otherwise may have little effect.
Neil Weinstock Netanel (ed.)
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195342109
- eISBN:
- 9780199866823
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195342109.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Intellectual Property, IT, and Media Law
Do broad, universal intellectual property rights bring the benefits of innovation, creativity, technical know-how, and foreign investment to developing countries? Or do treaties that require ...
More
Do broad, universal intellectual property rights bring the benefits of innovation, creativity, technical know-how, and foreign investment to developing countries? Or do treaties that require developing countries to grant greater intellectual property protection actually stifle development and impede access to the knowledge and essential medicines that the world's poor so desperately need? The debate over such questions has raged for decades, among scholars and diplomats, lawmakers and policy makers, nongovernmental organizations and international agencies, IP industries and development policy analysts. The Development Agenda is the fruition of developing countries' most recent campaign to ensure that the intellectual property treaty regime permits—and, indeed, empowers—developing countries to tailor their intellectual property laws as they deem necessary to promote development and serve the welfare of their citizens. The Agenda's adoption by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in September 2007 is an historic watershed for that UN agency, which has long viewed its mandate as the promotion of greater intellectual property rights throughout the world. This book examines the Development Agenda and the broader issues it raises. Our contributors include leading scholars from various disciplines, including economics, political science, and law, and from countries at various stages of development, including China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, Egypt, and Israel, in addition to the US, Canada, and EU. They also include experts from NGO-think tanks, UNCTAD, and two Brazilian diplomats who stood at the forefront of advocating for the Development Agenda's adoption at WIPO.Less
Do broad, universal intellectual property rights bring the benefits of innovation, creativity, technical know-how, and foreign investment to developing countries? Or do treaties that require developing countries to grant greater intellectual property protection actually stifle development and impede access to the knowledge and essential medicines that the world's poor so desperately need? The debate over such questions has raged for decades, among scholars and diplomats, lawmakers and policy makers, nongovernmental organizations and international agencies, IP industries and development policy analysts. The Development Agenda is the fruition of developing countries' most recent campaign to ensure that the intellectual property treaty regime permits—and, indeed, empowers—developing countries to tailor their intellectual property laws as they deem necessary to promote development and serve the welfare of their citizens. The Agenda's adoption by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in September 2007 is an historic watershed for that UN agency, which has long viewed its mandate as the promotion of greater intellectual property rights throughout the world. This book examines the Development Agenda and the broader issues it raises. Our contributors include leading scholars from various disciplines, including economics, political science, and law, and from countries at various stages of development, including China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, Egypt, and Israel, in addition to the US, Canada, and EU. They also include experts from NGO-think tanks, UNCTAD, and two Brazilian diplomats who stood at the forefront of advocating for the Development Agenda's adoption at WIPO.
Susan Tiefenbrun
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780195385779
- eISBN:
- 9780199776061
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385779.003.012
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
China's rampant piracy of American intellectual property costs the United States billions of dollars annually. This chapter examines the impact of cultural factors on a nation's interpretation of an ...
More
China's rampant piracy of American intellectual property costs the United States billions of dollars annually. This chapter examines the impact of cultural factors on a nation's interpretation of an international treaty designed to protect intellectual property rights of authors and artists. It explores the dramatic irony represented in the history and development of U.S. and Chinese adherence to the Berne Convention. It argues that the United States has read the Berne Convention in a manner consistent with the intent of the treaty and has interpreted the implications of the minimum standards it imposes; it is precisely for those hermeneutic reasons that the United States chose not to sign or even adhere to this international treaty for more than one hundred years. In contrast, China superimposed its own specifically Chinese cultural, political, and esthetic values on the European value systems embedded deeply in the Berne Convention. In other words, China read the treaty in its own idiom and interpreted the legal discourse of the Berne Convention in a manner inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the treaty.Less
China's rampant piracy of American intellectual property costs the United States billions of dollars annually. This chapter examines the impact of cultural factors on a nation's interpretation of an international treaty designed to protect intellectual property rights of authors and artists. It explores the dramatic irony represented in the history and development of U.S. and Chinese adherence to the Berne Convention. It argues that the United States has read the Berne Convention in a manner consistent with the intent of the treaty and has interpreted the implications of the minimum standards it imposes; it is precisely for those hermeneutic reasons that the United States chose not to sign or even adhere to this international treaty for more than one hundred years. In contrast, China superimposed its own specifically Chinese cultural, political, and esthetic values on the European value systems embedded deeply in the Berne Convention. In other words, China read the treaty in its own idiom and interpreted the legal discourse of the Berne Convention in a manner inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the treaty.
Ituarte-Lima Claudia
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199580910
- eISBN:
- 9780191723025
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580910.003.0013
- Subject:
- Law, Comparative Law
Notions of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Western-inspired legal cultures differ from the way IPR are understood by traditional knowledge holders in relatively isolated and biodiverse areas. ...
More
Notions of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Western-inspired legal cultures differ from the way IPR are understood by traditional knowledge holders in relatively isolated and biodiverse areas. This chapter characterizes IPR and biodiversity as legal categories that form part of the Western-inspired legal system. It shows that legal definitions relevant to bioprospection can be understood not as analytic anthropological concepts, but as ‘native’ categories of legal cultures and their associated ‘objects’ such as international legal treaties. The historical context as well as power relations influence the way definitions become crystallized in legal texts (e.g. international treaties). In turn, legal definitions affect the characterization of the resources owned as tangible and intangible, and influence particular interpretations of ‘public domain’.Less
Notions of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Western-inspired legal cultures differ from the way IPR are understood by traditional knowledge holders in relatively isolated and biodiverse areas. This chapter characterizes IPR and biodiversity as legal categories that form part of the Western-inspired legal system. It shows that legal definitions relevant to bioprospection can be understood not as analytic anthropological concepts, but as ‘native’ categories of legal cultures and their associated ‘objects’ such as international legal treaties. The historical context as well as power relations influence the way definitions become crystallized in legal texts (e.g. international treaties). In turn, legal definitions affect the characterization of the resources owned as tangible and intangible, and influence particular interpretations of ‘public domain’.
Daniel J Gervais
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195383614
- eISBN:
- 9780199855445
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195383614.003.0014
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
This chapter considers the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on development, including how it can and should be measured. It then considers whether the medium- and long-term impact of TRIPS might be to ...
More
This chapter considers the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on development, including how it can and should be measured. It then considers whether the medium- and long-term impact of TRIPS might be to cause or accelerate a geographical displacement in innovation. Finally, it offers some thoughts on the longer-term role of the developing world on the international intellectual property stage.Less
This chapter considers the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on development, including how it can and should be measured. It then considers whether the medium- and long-term impact of TRIPS might be to cause or accelerate a geographical displacement in innovation. Finally, it offers some thoughts on the longer-term role of the developing world on the international intellectual property stage.
Kristine Bruland and Keith Smith
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574759
- eISBN:
- 9780191722660
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574759.003.0003
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Innovation
This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Nordic countries — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland — which stretches back at least to the late eighteenth century, gathered force in the ...
More
This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Nordic countries — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland — which stretches back at least to the late eighteenth century, gathered force in the mid‐nineteenth century, and extended into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The patent system began relatively early, which facilitated inward technology transfer in two ways: first, via foreign patenting in the Nordic region and, second, via patent systems (“imported patents”) that permitted Nordic citizens to appropriate foreign‐developed inventions. However, there were many methods of acquiring and developing intellectual property, including societies, foreign work experience, immigration, exhibitions, and industrial espionage, and many ways to protect it. The chapter thus emphasizes the broader dimensions of learning and the creation of knowledge assets, and therefore the need to set IPRs within a wide context of knowledge creation.Less
This chapter discusses the catch‐up experience of Nordic countries — Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland — which stretches back at least to the late eighteenth century, gathered force in the mid‐nineteenth century, and extended into the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The patent system began relatively early, which facilitated inward technology transfer in two ways: first, via foreign patenting in the Nordic region and, second, via patent systems (“imported patents”) that permitted Nordic citizens to appropriate foreign‐developed inventions. However, there were many methods of acquiring and developing intellectual property, including societies, foreign work experience, immigration, exhibitions, and industrial espionage, and many ways to protect it. The chapter thus emphasizes the broader dimensions of learning and the creation of knowledge assets, and therefore the need to set IPRs within a wide context of knowledge creation.
