Global System of Intellectual Property Protection

Growth of international trade and development of knowl­edge and technology in the era of globalization requires development of the global IP protection system. States around the globe are on the way of converging upon the same set of IP standards in areas of law such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs etc. IP protection rules are becoming uniform around the world. States are shifting these rules to higher standards than previously prevailed in their domestic law: longer terms of protection, fewer exceptions to the scope of rights.

The major global IP agreement that caused important implications for economic development of the peripheral states is Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). TRIPS Agreement covering all IP rights is mandatory for all states that wish to join the WTO. TRIPS Agreement became part of the global IP protection system.

The book examines politics leading up to TRIPS Agreement and its implementation process. Interested private sector actors had per­suaded U.S. government to promote their cause of expanding IP pro­tection. TRIPS Agreement resulted largely from lobbying by multina­tional corporations who wished to mould international law to protect their markets^[4]. These actors pressed the U.S. Congress to recognize the critical importance to the United States of trade in goods and services dependent upon IP protection worldwide, and to help forge the necessary law tools. Peripheral countries that required economic aid from the core and global institutions in the form of loans and closer alliances with the stronger nations had no other option but to submit an agreement advocated by the U.S.

TRIPS Agreement established expansion of IP rights and high standards of IP protection. It raised the price of information and tech­nology by extending the monopoly privileges of the IP rights-holders. TRIPS Agreement has important implications for innovation, research and development, economic development and the global division of labor. The agreement codifies the increasing commodification of what was once called «public domain», making it unavailable to future creators. It is often argued that the global IP protection established by TRIPS Agreement locks up knowledge vital to the development of poor countries.

TRIPS Agreement met active resistance concentrating on patents on life forms and patents on pharmaceuticals. In area of life forms patenting opponents (grassroots activists, enviromental groups, farm­ers, human rights groups and consumer groups) are claiming that pa­tenting of life forms is no less that control of the U.S. corporations over the world food supply, not to mention the implications for scien­tific research and public access. A global campaign for access to es­sential medicines has emerged to protest U.S. trade policy in intellec­tual property and the TRIPS trade-off in favor of commercial interests over public health concerns. Patenting of pharmaceuticals is beeing blamed by opponents as restricting public access to essential medi­cines.

At the same time, TRIPS Agreement contains provisions mini­mizing negative impact and allowing states to increase the competi­tiveness of the national economy. Clauses on parallel imports and data exclusivity are described in the book. The said TRIPS provisions should be implemented and developed by states in their domestic laws as clauses favorable for innovations growth and competitiveness.

Application of global IP rules raises a question about human rights established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adequate health provision, food and education, the right to share in the benefits of scientific progress etc.). Some researches state that these rights are being made subordinate to the investment priorities of corporate IP owners while having primacy as a matter of international law.

Unification of copyright protection led to radical movements op­posing expansion of high IP standards. Opponents argue that IP rights-holders' monopoly on works, embodied inter alia in extension of copyright duration, negatively affects public interests. Copyright is public by nature. Extension of copyright protection shifts trade-off in favor of the rights-holders over public interests. TRIPS Agreement and WIPO Treaties establish minimum IP standards, however they never set the maximum IP protection requirements. Trade-off in favor of commercial interests restricts public access to computer technolo­gies and hinders access to folklore impeding knowledge exchange in the peripheral states.

The United States has been the most aggressive country in the IP area. While imposing IP protection on the global level, it has filed more WTO TRIPS complaints than all other member countries com­bined. The United States is promoting global IP protection through a variety of mechanisms, including annual review of the global state of IP rights protection (the «Special 301» Report) and trade preference programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences. Actions of the U.S. government aimed at promotion of the global IP regime are the result of consultations with industry groups and other U.S. private sector representatives. In fact, the U.S. measures against «inadequate» IP rights protection in the peripheral states are aimed to protect private interests of the American IP rights-holders.

Globalization of IP rights protection meets polar emotions. No doubt, global IP protection is important for knowledge and technology development and economy growth. However, to which extent this protection should go?

Uniform global IP protection imposing high standards on the countries with unequal economies establishes monopoly of the core and multinational corporations for knowledge and technology. This increases prices on technologies and negatively affects periphery competitiveness. This discontent is explained by different roles of the global actors of IP rights exchange — rights-holders (inventors, authors or their assignees) and users of knowledge and technology. Based on this idea, the core countries generating intellectual property are more likely to be rights-holders, while the periphery getting tech­nologies from the center is a user of IP rights. Thus, IP rights are ac­cumulated in the center while peripheral states are isolated from the knowledge exchange. This inequality results in blocking economic development of the peripheral countries.

Globalization of intellectual property by establishing uniform standards around the world blocks sustainable economic development and raises the problem of tradeoff between the center and periphery. While uniform IP protection will hinder access to knowledge and sub­sequently will negatively affect poor countries, differential global protection (regime that vary depending on economic indicators of each state) could become an effective solution for benefiting the pe­ripheral economies.

Поиск по сайту: