|
Once the arcane territory of lawyers and trade negotiators, the notion of intellectual property rights is quickly becoming a hotly debated subject. Anti-trade protests as well as extensive press coverage of the implications of patenting genes and software business methods have helped catalyze a healthy public dialogue about the form that these rights will take. There can be little doubt that in a rapidly evolving information economy, a frank discussion of how we access and protect knowledge is crucial to promoting innovation and the public good. However, a less encouraging trend now emerging is a seemingly wholesale distrust of intellectual-property rights. Much criticism has been focused on the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement, a part of the 1995 Uruguay round of negotiations that created the World Trade Organization. TRIPs sets global standards for intellectual property protection. Depending on level of development, countries had between one and ten years to implement agreed minimums of patent, copyright and trademark protection. However, many of the developing countries that are legally bound by TRIPs as of January 2000 have sought to reopen a debate on the agreement and its implementation. Critics argue that developing countries need more transition time and lower standards better suited to third world conditions, They also dispute the notion that the benefits contemplated in TRIPs -- transferring technology and promoting innovation -- will be achieved by stronger intellectual property rights. But these claims ignore the positive changes that TRIPs has wrought in countries making sincere efforts to meet their obligations. TRIPs has forced many countries to adjust outdated copyright laws to the new realities of an electronic world. That has often netted them greater high tech investment and a more fertile climate for homegrown industry, such as local software design and development. Both Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic have recently succeeded in attracting high tech investments due in part to efforts to improve copyright laws. Though many countries must overcome serious enforcement challenges, the laws in place help create a basic culture of intellectual-property rights. Unfortunately, that important recognition does not always extend to patent law. Copyright laws are often considered to be a way of protecting the interests of local performers, artists and others. But patent reform is often perceived to be in direct conflict with local industries -- most notably in the pharmaceutical sector -- that copy patented products. Such imitation industries rarely contribute much to the long term economic stability or innovativeness of any given country. They shadow price medicines, often charging the same or only slightly less than the original version of the drug, even though they neither paid royalties nor footed essential research and development costs. They seldom reinvest profit in research targeting localhealth concerns. Providing a longer TRIPs transition period in any country where a copy based industry holds political sway is unlikely to promote change; such companies emphatically resist any reform that would inhibit their ability to cheaply copy patented products. In the Dominican Republic, for example, lawmakers ignored the advice of a number of local and foreign trade law experts, passing a seriously flawed industrial property (patent) law that clearly bowed to local copy-based industry pressure. Currently awaiting a final presidential action, the law would likely be the subject of a WTO dispute settlement case, and potential trade sanctions. The new law also ignores commitments made to the United States under the Generalized System of Preferences and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, preferential trade agreements that contain intellectual property provisions. If Washington eliminated or reduced these benefits, many other Dominican industries, such as textile and cigar producers, would likely suffer. Other frequently voiced fears that local industry would wither in the face of patent protection are unfounded. Since 90-95% of drugs in any given market are off-patent, most companies are well-positioned to take advantage of a strong generic sector. They can also seek licensing arrangements with the original patent holders to produce pharmaceuticals that remain under patent, or they can refocus their efforts on research and development of new products. Additionally, the U.S. government recently addressed developing country concerns about access to essential medicines, establishing a consultative mechanism on health-related intellectual property matters. For many countries, TRIPs was a trade off. Each WTO member committed to reducing non-tariff trade barriers such as intellectual property piracy in order to gain greater market access and lower tariffs. But the perceived sacrifices in promoting stronger intellectual property protection are often misrepresented, and the long-term gains rarely emphasized. TRIPs sets a long-needed standard for protection that will spur innovation and investment and help create a universal appreciation for the importance of intellectual property rights. That benefits businesses, consumers and countries alike. |