This thesis is to address the possibility of adapting the patent law in Taiwan, compared with what is done in India. These adjustments utilize the so-called “TRIPS flexibilities” embodied in the TRIPS Agreement (The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), as Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (hereinafter the WTO) which came into effect in January, 1995. As a trade-off between promoting knowledge diffusion and exclusivity to use the knowledge, the patent system is part of the minimum standard established in the course of the globalization of intellectual property right (IPR). The formation of TRIPS also demonstrates that the strength of private sector and …show more content…
Because of the root of the intellectual property rights inevitably goes to the inherent "public goods" analysis, favoring partially the inventor 's power of control will become a burden for users and competitors. Excessive protection may ultimately reduce competition barrier and weaken the power of the national innovation. If developing countries can render their laws to curve it to “the pro-competitive strategy,” and this would allow the technology free rider countries to become “fair followers,” as Professor Reichman indicates. In this way, developing countries can make use of “TRIPS flexibilities,” because “wiggle room” in fact exists in the TRIPS Agreement. For example, Brazil employs this idea in constructing its compulsory license requirements in its copyright law; South Africa adopted a more stringent patent protection than the TRIPS Agreement demands while incorporated a safeguard clause to facilitate the use of essential drugs. Another good example of employing TRIPS flexibilities is the patent law of India. Before the TRIPS Agreement was negotiated, India’s patent law did not regard pharmaceutical chemicals as subject matter of protection and India consequentially became one of world 's top generic drug producers. However, in order to comply with
Paragraph 5 of the Preamble of the TRIPS Agreement provides that “the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological objectives” Accordingly, the Preamble is not an operative provision. Therefore, Professor Grosse Ruse-khan suggests that the position of the Preamble “merely opens a door” for other national interest to be taken into consideration, nonetheless the interest would not necessarily prevail. He contends that non-economic interest would be only considered as an “exception” to the right. Through the use of the flexibilities embedded in TRIPS, Professor Gervais contends the Preamble recognizes developing countries’ need to realize their developmental objects, such as innovation policy. However, he also stresses that the flexibility should be used in a manner that “[creates] a sound and viable technological
-One can achieve a high level of innovation in some areas of the modern economy without the intellectual property protection – “excessive, unbalanced or poorly designed IP protections may be counterproductive”
Are America patents greatly more beneficial or detrimental to innovation and trade in the economy? Arguable both stances are accurate. Innovation and trade in the national economy is based off the premise of the protection of ones inventions in the form of patents. Without this guarantee innovation would not be valued, only piracy trade would occur stagnating economic progress. On the global economic stance patents are becoming difficult to manipulate in trade deals like the highly controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership underway currently. Deals as such are becoming greatly more complicated as American politicians begin to manipulate foreign trade agreements trying to get the deal which benefit American markets and cooperations the best. This has become so difficult countries like China have opted out all together in the mass trade deals because their economic structure is built upon ripping off innovations from mostly American cooperations for a means of economic growth. This is where it is believe patents have to be saved to stop other countries impediments on fair trade but; then one could arguably say the complete opposite position, that patents all together are detrimental to innovation and trade in the economy because having them in itself is an impediment to free and fair trade alike. That idea all together is not practical and would be imprudent in term because it would disrupt the already established and paid for order.
The very utterance of the word patent frightens us with the sheer complexity and wordplay it can subsume us with. Here is an attempt to demystify patents and the world of legal wrangling. As the lexicon definition goes, it is “the exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, or sell an invention for a certain number of years”. However, over the years, as patents and workarounds have evolved, companies have gone out of their ways to exercise monopoly over innovation and prevent competition from innovating in a related area of research and development.
1. Patent systems allows inventors all around the world to file and claim some form of intellectual property as their invention which gives them exclusive rights to make use of this property for a certain period of time (usually 20 years), after which it is available for public use. The inventor must release all details regarding the invention which are needed to utilize the property by experts/professionals in the field. The patent system gives rise to many economic implications such as the increase in innovation due to the incentivization received by the inventors, increase in cooperation among firms in the market and in many cases, decrease in innovation due to broad patents or hoarding of patents
Developed countries with health care systems have taken advantage of current AIDS research (Shostak, 2002). The major pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the AIDS drugs campaigned against any means to offer these drugs at lower cost, claiming that governments and other sectors were responsible for finding reasonable means of providing the drugs; pharmaceutical companies were concerned primarily with research and development (Gray, 2013). The pharmaceutical drug companies feared that drugs sold to Africa at a low cost might then be re-exported to wealthy countries for a profit, due to corruption in the government (Shostak, 2002). This ripple effect would then cause the more established countries to demand a lower cost (Shostak, 2002). This, in turn, could encourage AIDS patients in developed countries to demand lower prices as well (Shostak, 2002). The drug companies were also concerned with protecting their intellectual property rights (Shostak, 2002). In 1993, United States President Bill Clinton, urged to extend the patent laws to exist worldwide (Shostak, 2002). This developed into the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which protected the exclusive marketing rights of patent holders (Shostak, 2002). This agreement allowed pharmaceutical companies to ability to control the pricing and marketing of the drugs they developed
The Coalition for the 21st Century Patent Reform (“the Coalition”) is made up of more than 40 pharmaceutical and technology-based corporations. Each of the members of the Coalition operates major research, development, and manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and sells their products abroad. Members of the coalition believe
We will look into patent law of different countries and then we will see how it will affect the Indian sub-continent. At the end I will do an ethical evaluation of the issue along with my standpoint on the issue raised. Much of the content of this paper may seem to be influenced by the idea of Stallman, as I completely agree his view on this subject and respect his view.
A bilateral agreement that encourages joint ventures between the U.S. and China will also help to foster a culture of IPR enforcement in China. Intellectual property lawyer Frank Lin attributes China’s dismissive attitude towards IP protection to China’s recent emergence from Communism, as private property rights in China have only existed for one generation. Joint ventures will help to accelerate a shift in cultural attitudes.
International protection of the vital interests of the countries involved in the development of enterprises, and the relationship between national intellectual property rights. In the late 1980s, facing recession, the United States dropped its international competitiveness because its intellectual property rights could not be protected in the world, that its biggest competition in the economic resources and with the advantage of technology and invention, effective protection of intellectual property rights is critical to the US economy overseas.
It limits their business which in result causes them to do less research. While India has done this many other countries have put human rights over intellectual property rights.
In some manner, it would be strenuous to realize all of the goals, such as removing “distortions to international trade” and promoting “technological innovation” and “the transfer and dissemination of technology” in the Preamble and other provisions. To be specific, “technology transfer” was introduced in article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 7 stipulates: “protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology.” However, the scope and language of this provision are quite vague and extensive, whereas many formal or informal institutions, such as pre-grant disclosure and post-grant licensing contribute more
To file for international patent, actors have to go through preliminary examination, performed by an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA)[citation]. The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was made in 1970 which unified procedure for filing patent applications to each contracting states. There is no such thing as international patent, however, PCTapplication establishes that all contracting countries must follow specified phases to proceed toward granting patents. It is essentially a standard national patent application that contracting countries abide to follow. This creates organization of patent application by each countries and allows contracting countries to have access to those patent information. According to WIPO, as of March 16, 2017, the PCT has now 152 contracting states, which is majority of countries around the world.In the case for utility models, the international obligation does not exists, meaning countries may freely determine what conditions for protection they consider appropriate for their domestic setting. It is far flexible in terms of fitting the local, domestic needs compared to patents. However, according to The
Patent is an exclusive rights that uses to protect intellectual property rights. In recent years, with the development of electronic technology and the widespread use of electronic platforms, software patents has become a hot topic that frequently discussed by the public. To a certain extent, the patent brought many exclusive economic rights to the product inventors; the inventors can get a lot of additional economic benefits with their product patent, especially in terms of software patent. However, on the other hand, the negative effects of patents also should not be underestimated, such as it might obstruct creativity, and it might cause an unnecessary litigation in order to compete the patent. Compared to the positive effects of the patent, the negative effects of the patent seems to be more prominent. This essay will discuss the usefulness and the harmfulness of patent from three parts. In the first part, the essay will briefly discuss the concept of the patent and its general applications. Then, it will analyze the disadvantages of patent. Finally, the essay will explore the effective solution for the vicious competition of patent.