Last October, the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) decided to consider what a development-oriented intellectual property regime might look like. The move was little noticed, but, in some ways, it was as important as the World Trade Organization's (WTO) decision that the current round of trade negotiations be devoted to development. Both decisions acknowledge that the current rules of the international economic game reflect the interests of the advanced industrial countries -- especially of their big corporations -- more than the interests of the developing world.
Without intellectual property protection, incentives to engage in certain types of creative endeavors would be weakened. But there are high costs associated with intellectual property. Ideas are the most important input into research, and if intellectual property slows down the ability to use others' ideas, then scientific and technological progress will suffer.
In fact, many of the most important ideas -- for example, the mathematics that underlies the modern computer or the theories behind atomic energy or lasers -- are not protected by intellectual property. The growth of the "open source" movement on the Internet shows that not just the most basic ideas, but even products of enormous immediate commercial value can be produced without intellectual property protection.
By contrast, an intellectual property regime rewards innovators by creating a temporary monopoly power, allowing them to charge far higher prices than they could if there were competition. In the process, ideas are disseminated and used less.
The economic rationale for intellectual property is that faster innovation offsets the enormous costs of such inefficiencies. But it has become increasingly clear that excessively strong or badly formulated intellectual property rights may actually impede innovation.
Monopolists may have much less incentive to innovate than they would if they had to compete. Modern research has shown that the great economist Joseph Schumpeter was wrong in thinking that competition in innovation leads to a succession of firms. In fact, a monopolist, once established, may be hard to dislodge, as Microsoft has demonstrated.
Indeed, once established, a monopoly can use its market power to squelch competitors, as Microsoft so amply demonstrated in the case of the Netscape Web browser. Such abuses of market power discourage innovation.
Moreover, so-called "patent thickets" -- the fear that some advance will tread on pre-existing patents, of which the innovator may not even be aware -- may also discourage innovation. After the pioneering work of the Wright brothers and the Curtis brothers, overlapping patent claims thwarted the development of the airplane, until the US government finally forced a patent pool as World War I loomed.
The creation of any product requires many ideas, and sorting out their relative contribution to the outcome -- let alone which ones are really new -- can be nearly impossible.
Consider a drug based on traditional knowledge, say, of a herb well known for its medicinal properties. How important is the contribution of the US firm that isolates the active ingredient? Pharmaceutical companies argue that they should be entitled to a full patent, paying nothing to the developing country from which the traditional knowledge was taken, even though the country preserves the biodiversity without which the drug would never have come to market. Not surprisingly, developing countries see things differently.
Society has always recognized that other values may trump intellectual property. The need to prevent excessive monopoly power has led anti-trust authorities to require compulsory licensing (as the US government did with the telephone company AT).
Unfortunately, the trade negotiators who framed the intellectual-property agreement of the Uruguay trade round of the early 1990s (TRIP's) were either unaware of all of this, or more likely, uninterested. I served on the Clinton administration's Council of Economic Advisers at the time, and it was clear that there was more interest in pleasing the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries than in ensuring an intellectual-property regime that was good for science, let alone for developing countries.
I suspect that most of those who signed the agreement did not fully understand what they were doing. If they had, would they have willingly condemned thousands of AIDS sufferers to death because they might no longer be able to get affordable generic drugs?
Intellectual property is important, but the appropriate intellectual property regime for a developing country is different from that for an advanced industrial country. The TRIP's scheme failed to recognize this. In fact, intellectual property should never have been included in a trade agreement in the first place, because its regulation is demonstrably beyond the competency of trade negotiators.
Besides, an international organization already exists to protect intellectual property. Hopefully, in WIPO's reconsideration of intellectual property regimes, the voices of the developing world will be heard more clearly than they were in the WTO negotiations; hopefully, WIPO will succeed in outlining what a pro-developing intellectual property regime implies; and hopefully, WTO will listen. The aim of trade liberalization is to boost development, not hinder it.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
American fantasies about China helped create the biggest strategic adversary the US has ever faced. For over 45 years, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama, successive American presidents aided China’s economic rise as a matter of policy. Even as Beijing cheated on trade rules, stole technology, and flexed its military muscle, including against Taiwan, the US looked the other way, in the naive hope that a more prosperous China would liberalize economically and politically. Despite the fundamental shift in America’s China policy introduced by then-US president Donald Trump’s administration, US fantasies, to some extent, still persist, complicating the pursuit of a
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not play out the way Russian President Vladimir Putin had hoped, but it is proving an unimagined boon for his fellow authoritarian leader in neighboring Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has never been as politically secure as he is today. Sadly, that success is just adding to evidence, if more were needed, that when dictators feel strong, they tend to use their increased confidence for repression rather than for political and economic reform. Aliyev has won big from Russia’s invasion on multiple fronts. In July last year he signed a deal with the EU to double
Roson (羅森), a renowned Taiwan-born wuxia (“martial arts and chivalry”) novelist who shot to fame in Taiwan for having mature content in his works, has moved his career to China several years ago. He settled down in Zhuhai in Guangdong Province while managing a novel Web site for years. He was arrested earlier this year and given a 12-year sentence for “producing, selling or disseminating obscene articles for profit,” according to online reports. News of him serving a sentence first appeared on Chinese gaming Web site NGA and shortly after, the news spread to Professional Technology Temple’s gaming bulletin board.
The economic meeting of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that concluded on Friday last week featured the usual rhetoric, yet lacked a clear plan for the future. It was marked by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) endorsing conflicting objectives, the primary inconsistency lying in Xi’s desire to expand the economy while simultaneously avoiding liberalization of market forces and the private sector. If China is to achieve Xi’s goal of doubling the size of its economy by 2035, the country has to maintain annual GDP growth of 5 percent. Most experts believe this type of rapid growth is no
RSS