TRIPS: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
TRIPS = Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
'''Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)'''


For more context, see our entry on [[WIPO]]
For more context, see our entry on [[WIPO]]
Line 9: Line 9:


Combined with the trend towards extension of IPs in term and scope, TRIPS threatens to sentence the developing world to perpetual bondage by the developed one. Indeed, as Andrew Gowers put it to me on the day in late 2006 that he published his review into British intellectual property law: "[I]f you look at the whole swathe of developing countries, from the successful ones to the poor ones, does the one-size-fits-all approach [compelling adoption of an industrial nation's standard of IP protection] really work? The answer is, it makes no sense." (http://www.opendemocracy.net/media/hogge_wipo_4431.jsp)  
Combined with the trend towards extension of IPs in term and scope, TRIPS threatens to sentence the developing world to perpetual bondage by the developed one. Indeed, as Andrew Gowers put it to me on the day in late 2006 that he published his review into British intellectual property law: "[I]f you look at the whole swathe of developing countries, from the successful ones to the poor ones, does the one-size-fits-all approach [compelling adoption of an industrial nation's standard of IP protection] really work? The answer is, it makes no sense." (http://www.opendemocracy.net/media/hogge_wipo_4431.jsp)  
=Discussion=
==The problem with TRIPS==
From: http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=1246593302&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=11
"The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement
benefits developed countries such as the United States of America
which earns over six billion dollars through patents.
As a result, the poorer countries have called for recognition of their
right to policy space to strike a better balance within international
rules and give them some protection.
"Without that protection which provides some sort of respite for
infant industries, developing countries will be locked into whatever
system of comparative advantage that was established by historical and
other factors," Anghie says.
The comparative advantage is the ability to produce a good at a lower
cost, relative to other goods, compared to another country.
It is, in many respects influenced by natural factors, a product of
history or something which is made by government policies.
However, the developed countries are slow in recognising the right of
policy space for developing countries due to the fear that it would
enable the latter to strengthen their bargaining positions, Anghie
says.
Analysts point out that history has shown that liberalization and
opening as a rule is almost always beneficial to everyone in the
long-term.
But agreements like TRIPS are unusual that they do the opposite, by
imposing more restrictions that prevent the spread of knowledge.
Extending the life of patents for example restricts the spread of
technology not only to poor countries but even within economic players
in rich countries, stifling innovation and development.
This is why especially in computer software concepts like 'creative
commons' and 'open source' have sprung up.
Though countries like China and India are now filing a greater number
of patents, the fundamental premise of protection and restriction
promoted by TRIPS stands out like a sore thumb in a sea of
liberalization.
The steel industry in Sheffield in UK developed by hiring metalworkers
from Germany at a time when there was no agreements like TRIPS to
restrict the spread of steelmaking technology.
Better bargaining positions will enable poorer countries to avoid
pressure from rich countries to undertake more liberalisation and
privatisations through institutions such as the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) or World Bank, Anghie says.
But developed countries point out that concession schemes such as the
Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) granted to poor countries is
similar to a free ride in the global trade arena.
Despite strict international rules, with sound policies, development
and comparative advantage can be achieved just like in East Asia, says
Anghie.
"The trade rules, even though biased against developing countries,
have still created a situation which developing countries with the
right policies might be able to succeed in bringing about
development."





Revision as of 05:21, 8 August 2007

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

For more context, see our entry on WIPO


Description

"The TRIPS accord, which came into force on 1 January 1995, sets out minimal standards for IP enforcement. Although the compliance period for these standards has been extended to 2016 for the world's least-developed countries, such standards threaten, nevertheless, to prevent the developing world from enjoying the free flow of ideas and their expression which so aided today's developed nations during the west's industrial age.

Combined with the trend towards extension of IPs in term and scope, TRIPS threatens to sentence the developing world to perpetual bondage by the developed one. Indeed, as Andrew Gowers put it to me on the day in late 2006 that he published his review into British intellectual property law: "[I]f you look at the whole swathe of developing countries, from the successful ones to the poor ones, does the one-size-fits-all approach [compelling adoption of an industrial nation's standard of IP protection] really work? The answer is, it makes no sense." (http://www.opendemocracy.net/media/hogge_wipo_4431.jsp)


Discussion

The problem with TRIPS

From: http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=1246593302&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=11


"The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement benefits developed countries such as the United States of America which earns over six billion dollars through patents.

As a result, the poorer countries have called for recognition of their right to policy space to strike a better balance within international rules and give them some protection.

"Without that protection which provides some sort of respite for infant industries, developing countries will be locked into whatever system of comparative advantage that was established by historical and other factors," Anghie says.

The comparative advantage is the ability to produce a good at a lower cost, relative to other goods, compared to another country.

It is, in many respects influenced by natural factors, a product of history or something which is made by government policies.

However, the developed countries are slow in recognising the right of policy space for developing countries due to the fear that it would enable the latter to strengthen their bargaining positions, Anghie says.

Analysts point out that history has shown that liberalization and opening as a rule is almost always beneficial to everyone in the long-term.

But agreements like TRIPS are unusual that they do the opposite, by imposing more restrictions that prevent the spread of knowledge.

Extending the life of patents for example restricts the spread of technology not only to poor countries but even within economic players in rich countries, stifling innovation and development.

This is why especially in computer software concepts like 'creative commons' and 'open source' have sprung up.

Though countries like China and India are now filing a greater number of patents, the fundamental premise of protection and restriction promoted by TRIPS stands out like a sore thumb in a sea of liberalization.

The steel industry in Sheffield in UK developed by hiring metalworkers from Germany at a time when there was no agreements like TRIPS to restrict the spread of steelmaking technology.

Better bargaining positions will enable poorer countries to avoid pressure from rich countries to undertake more liberalisation and privatisations through institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank, Anghie says.

But developed countries point out that concession schemes such as the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) granted to poor countries is similar to a free ride in the global trade arena.

Despite strict international rules, with sound policies, development and comparative advantage can be achieved just like in East Asia, says Anghie.

"The trade rules, even though biased against developing countries, have still created a situation which developing countries with the right policies might be able to succeed in bringing about development."


More Information

Resource book on TRIPS at http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/ResourceBookIndex.htm