Political Economy of Intellectual Property Policy-Making

An Observation from a Realistic (and Slightly Cynical) Perspective

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Political Economy of Intellectual Property Policy-Making

An Observation from a Realistic (and Slightly Cynical) Perspective

in The Journal of World Investment & Trade

References

For the CHD, see the original proposal: Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council un the Pntentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, Bmssels, 20 February 2002, COM(2002) 92 final; available at: Recommendaticmsfor Second Reading on the Council Common Position for Adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, Rapporteur: Michel Rocard, 21 June 2005, FINAL A6-0207/2005.

2 WTO, Council for TRIPS, Implementation of Paragraph 11 of the General Council Decision of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Dedaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, 6 December 2005, WTO Doc. IP/C/41; available at: . 3 A more detailed analysis of the above cases can be found in U. Suthersanen, Europe Rejects the Linguistic Strugqle, in J. Nurton and M. Pugatch (eds.), Europe-The Innovation Debate, Supplement, Managing Intellectual Property Magazine, September 2005, pp. 59-60; M.P. Pugatch, Patents, Pharmaceuticals and the Implementation of Paragraph 6 af the Doha Declaration on the TRips Agreement and Public Health, Journal of BioLaw & Business, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2005, pp. 16-21. 4 This section is a concise extract from a previous article: M.P. Pugatch, Tlte International Regulation of1pp-� in a Trips and TRips-plus World, 6J.W.I.T. 3, July 2005, pp. 231-265.

5 B.V. Hindley, The Economic Theory of Patents, Copyrights, and Registered Industrial Designs: Background Study to the Report on Intellectual and Industrial Property, Economic Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1971, p. 1. 6 For an in-depth economic review of the patent system, see ibid.; F. Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 85th Congress, Second Session, Study No. 15, Washington, D.C., 1958; and C. Primo-Braga, Guidance From Economic Theory, in W. E. Siebeck (ed.), Strengthening Protection of Intellectual Property in Developing Countries, World Bank Discussion Papers No. 112, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 17-32. 7 Machlup, ibid., Chapter 4; Hindley, supra, footnote 5, pp. 1-31; Primo-Braga, ibid., pp. 17-32. 8 K. Arrow, Economic Wefare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, in National Bureau of Economic Research (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1962, pp. 609-626; Hindley, ibid., pp. 12-13.

9 Ibid. 10 J. Robinson, The Accumulation oJ Capital, Macmillan, London, 1956, p. 87. rl Hindlcy, supra, footnote 5, pp. 1-31. �z W.D. Nordhaus, Invention, Growth and Welfare, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, Chapter 5; F.M. Scherer, Nordhaus' Theory of Optimal Patent Life: A Geometric Reinterpretation, American Economic Review, Vol. 62, June 1972, pp. 422-427. �3 Machlup, supra, footnote 6, p. 79. 14 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), The Role of Trade Marks in Developing Countries, UNCTAD, New York, 1979; E.H. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, 5th edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 56-64 and 249; Hindley, supra, footnote 5, pp. 69-74.

15 Hindley, ibid.; UNCTAD, Examination of the Economic, Commercial and Development Aspects of Industrial Property in the Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries: Trade Marks and Ceneric Names of Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Protection, UNCTAD, New York, 1981, pp. 8-14. 16 R. Vemon, The Intemational Patent Systems and Foreign Poliry, Study of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 85th Congress, Second Session, Study No. 5, Washington, D.C., 1957; E. Penrose, The Economics of the International Patent System, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1951; J.C. Chin and G.M. Grossman, Intellectual Property Rights and North-South Trade, in R. Jones and A. Krueger (eds.), The Political Economy of International Trade, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., 1990, pp. 90-197. 17 Penrose, ibid., pp. 95-96. 18 M.P. Pugatch, The International Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K., June 2004, Chapter 3.

r9 Ibid. z° For a discussion of this argument, see E.H. Grundman, The Economic Argurnents for Patents and T7icir Validity for Developing Countries, The Indian Economic Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1970, pp. 193-207; George Sipa-Adjah Yankey, International Patents and Technology Transfer to Less Developed Countries, Avebury, Aldershot, U.K., 1987, pp. 15-19; K.E. Maskus and D.E. Konan, Trade-Related IntellectualProperty Rights: Issues and Exploratory Result, in A.V. Dcardorffand R.M. Stem (eds.), Arralytical and Negotiating Isseres in the Global Tracing System, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1994, pp. 401-454, particularly at pp. 441-446. Zr M.R. Sherwood, Intellectual Property and Economic Development, Westview Press, San Francisco and Boulder, Colorado, 1990, Chapters 5 and 6; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Economic Arguments for Protecting Intellectual Property Effectively, OECD, Paris, 1989, p. 11. 1 . 22 Grundman, supra, footnote 20, p. 196. Also see A. Subramanian, TRIPS and the Parad(grn ol'tilc G.4't'o': A Tropical Temperate View, World Economy, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1990, pp. 509-521. z3 R. Evenson, Intellectual Property Rights, R&D, Inventions, Teclrnology Purchase and Piracy in Economic Development,: An International Conryarative Study, in R. Evenson and G. Ranis (eds.), Science and Technology: Lessons for Development Policy, Intennediate Technology Publications, London, 1990, pp. 325-356; R.M. Gadbaw and T.J. Richards, Intellectual Property Rights: Global Consensus, Global Con)lict, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1988, Table 1.2.

21 Sherwood, supra, footnote 21, p. 145. 2S W. Park and D. Lippolds, International Licensing and the Strengthening o_f Illtellectual Property Riqhts in Developing Countries during the 1990s, OECIJ Economic Studies, Paris, 2005, p. 17.

26 S. Krasner, The Accomplishments ofinternatiotial Political Economy, in S.M. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996, pp. z122. 27 A.J. Frieden and R. Rogowski, The Impact of the International Economy on National Policies: An Analytical Overview, in R. Keohane and H. Milner (eds.), Internationalization and Domestic Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996, pp. 25-47. 21 Milner and Keohane, ibid.; H.V. Milner, Resisting Protectionism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1988. 29 J. Greenwood and M. Aspinwall, Collective Action in the European Union, Routledge, London, 1998, pp. 20-22.

3o J.H. Jackson, The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997; M.L. Doane, TRIPS and International Intellectual Property Prorection in An .Age of Advancing Technology, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1994, pp. 465-497; J. Nogues, Patents and Pharmaceutical Drugs-Understanding the Pressures on Developing Countries, PPR Working Papers, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., September 1990. 3r Nogues, ibid., pp. 7-8. 32 J. Braithwaite and P. Drahos, Global Business Regulations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2000, Chapter 7, pp. 61-65. 33 Id. 34 Ibid., p. 71. 1. 3S Pugatch, supra, footnote 18.

36 H. Robert, P. Holmes and J. Reid, Study Contract ETD1991B5-30001EII06: The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Proyrnms, Report to the European Commission on Behalf of the Intellectual Property Institute, London, 19 October 2000, p. 5; available at:

11 Conmiission of the European Communities, supra, footnote 1. w Ibid., p. 2. 39 European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council oil the I'atentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, Com(2002) 92-C5-0082/2002-2002/0047(CoJ)), 24 September 2003. 11) CommOI1 Position (EC) No. 2012005 off 7 March 2005 Adopted by the Council, Acting in Accord<111[£, with the Procedures Referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, With a View to AdoptiHg a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, Official Journal of the European Union, 14 June 2005, C144 E/9; available at:

°r Charlie McCreevy, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Statement to the European Parliament on Computer Irnplernented Inventions, European Parliament Plenary Session, Strasbourg, 8 March 2005. °z Recommendation for a Second Reading, supra, footnote 1. 43 All quotes are taken from the EurActiv.com Website, at: . 44 Ibid. °s Ibid. °h Ibid. °� Ibid.

4$ A detailed analysis can be found in Pugatch, sura, footnote 4. 49 H.J. Reichman, SectiritW Compliance with the TRIPS Agreement after LJS v India, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 581-601, at p. 583. 50 WTO, Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Ministerial Declaration nn the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted on 14 November 2001, WTO Doc. WT/MtN(O1)/DEC/2 TRIPS. 51 H. Cooper and G. Winestock, How Activists Outmaneuvered Drug Makers in WTO Deal, Wall Street Journal Europe, 15 November 2001, p. 6; F. Williams, Declaration on Patent Rules Cheers Developing Counfries, Financial Times, 15 November 2001, p. 11.

52 See WTO, Second Communication from the United States, 9 July 2002, WTO Doc. IP/C/W/358; and Joint Communication from the African Group in the WTO, 24 June 2002, WTO Doc. IP/C/W/351. 53 See Communication from the European Communities and theirMember States, 20 June 2002, W ro Doc. IP/C/W/352.

54 Council for TRIPS, Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, 30 August 2003, W ro Doc. WT/L540. 55 WTO, supra, footnote 2.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 6 6 3
Full Text Views 1 1 1
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0