Regular THCB readers know that we are big fans of Stratfor.com, the strategic intelligence firm based in Austin Texas. While Stratfor is probably better known for their analysis of international and national security issues (Think The Economist with a wonky American accent and a healthy obsession with non-state actors and special interest groups), the firm also provides very good coverage of domestic public policy issues, keeping an eye firmly trained on Washington. Analyst Bart Mongoven, the author of the Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report is a personal favorite of mine. Today he writes on the evolving definition of intellectual property rights in the international arena, examining recent developments that may signal changes that could be felt everywhere from the market for consumer goods to the pharmaceutical industry. If you enjoy this piece, be sure to sign up for Stratfor’s free email report. — John
The World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) will hold its annual meeting beginning Sept. 24, at which time
representatives of its 184 member countries will likely endorse the so-called
WIPO Development Agenda. WIPO rejected the ideas expressed in the Development
Agenda just two years ago, but leading industrialized countries appear rather
suddenly to have changed their positions. As a result, this agenda will
reflect a fundamental change in how intellectual property rights (IPR) will
be viewed globally in the coming decades. \u003cbr\>For the past 40 years, the\nworld's largest economies have enforced their position globally that\nintellectual property rights are sacrosanct. The 1994 World Trade\nOrganization (WTO) agreement on Trade on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)\nadded some exclusions for emergencies, but in general WIPO and TRIPS rules\nhave been reflexively protective of patents and copyrights.\u003cbr\> \u003cbr\>In the\npast 10 years, however, this approach has come under increasing fire from\ngovernments in developing countries (including WIPO members), human rights\nand humanitarian groups, relief organizations and anti-capitalist groups.\nThese entities argue that the system retards the economic growth of\ndeveloping countries and even results in deaths because citizens cannot\naccess medicines and other patented life-saving technologies. Most detractors\nof the current regime argue that the absolute protection of intellectual\nproperty rights is doing far more harm than good — economically and socially\n– and some of them are calling for a radical shift that would essentially do\naway with recognition of IPR entirely. \u003cbr\> \u003cbr\>As production of goods\nbecomes more and more efficient, especially with modern industrial processes\nreaching low-wage countries such as China, goods are becoming less expensive.\nIntellectual property, on the other hand, is coming to be seen as expensive.\nWhether in drugs, music, seeds or even designer handbags, the price gap\nbetween patented products and the raw cost of the materials — that is, the\nprice of the intellectual property — is growing. With that growth,\nintellectual property rights are more frequently being abrogated. Any\ngovernment tax authority will attest that the amount of cheating is directly\nrelated to the perception that the cost of a product is unfairly high.\u003cbr\>\n\u003cbr\>Though change is afoot, the world is nowhere near doing away with\nintellectual property protection. Still, the tide has shifted the WIPO\nstance, as well as the outlook of a number of other players. Most important,\nthe fairly absolute approach to intellectual property protection looks shaky.\nThe coming regime will likely give corporations a rationale for protecting\nIPR in some cases, but not others. In doing so, it will force changes in a\nnumber of industries and business models. “,1]
);
//–>
For the past 40 years, the
world’s largest economies have enforced their position globally that
intellectual property rights are sacrosanct. The 1994 World Trade
Organization (WTO) agreement on Trade on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
added some exclusions for emergencies, but in general WIPO and TRIPS rules
have been reflexively protective of patents and copyrights.
In the
past 10 years, however, this approach has come under increasing fire from
governments in developing countries (including WIPO members), human rights
and humanitarian groups, relief organizations and anti-capitalist groups.
These entities argue that the system retards the economic growth of
developing countries and even results in deaths because citizens cannot
access medicines and other patented life-saving technologies. Most detractors
of the current regime argue that the absolute protection of intellectual
property rights is doing far more harm than good — economically and socially
— and some of them are calling for a radical shift that would essentially do
away with recognition of IPR entirely.
