Intellectual Property and Development Task Force Meeting, Manchester 2009
June 22, 2009
Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester Manchester, United Kingdom
Now more than ever, developing innovative capacities and mastering knowledge are key factors for catching up technologically to advanced nations. This process also involves critical public policies, including technology protection. Consequently, the major aim of our task force and its book is to analyze IP rights and regimes and their effects on developing countries' technical change and catch-up prospects.
-
Tony Addison
Task Force Member
Chief Economist and Deputy Director
World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER)
United Nations University
-
Amar Bhattacharya
Task Force Member
Director
G24 Secretariat
-
Leonardo Burlamaqui
Task Force Member
Professor
State University of Rio de Janeiro
-
Sarah Caro
Task Force Member
Publisher, Economics and Finance
Oxford University Press
-
Ana Celia Castro
Task Force Member
Professor
Universidad Federal Rio de Janeiro
-
Sarah Chan
Task Force Member
Research Fellow, School of Law
Manchester University
-
Mario Cimoli
Task Force Chair
Professor of Economics
Ca' Foscari University of Venice
-
Benjamin Coriat
Task Force Member
Professor of Economics
Universite de Paris 13
-
Paul David
Task Force Member
Professor of Economics and Economic History
Oxford University
-
Giovanni Dosi
Task Force Chair
Professor of Economics
Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies of Pisa
-
Michael Halewood
Task Force Member
Professor
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)
-
John Harris
Task Force Member
Lord David Alliance Professor of Bioethics
University of Manchester
-
Albert Hu
Task Force Member
Professor
National University of Singapore
-
Adam Jaffe
Task Force Member
Professor
Brandeis University
-
James Love
Task Force Member
Director
Knowledge Ecology International
-
Keith Maskus
Task Force Member
Professor and Department Chair
University of Colorado at Boulder
-
Ruth Okediji
Task Force Member
Professor of Law
University of Minnesota
-
Luigi Orsenigo
Task Force Member
Professor, Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies
Bocconi University
-
Jerome Reichman
Task Force Chair
Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law
Duke Law School
-
Catherine Rhodes
Task Force Member
Research Fellow in Ethics of Science
School of Law, Manchester University
-
Nagla Rizk
Task Force Member
Professor
American University, Cairo
-
Ken Shadlen
Task Force Member
Senior Lecturer in Development Studies
London School of Economics
-
Lea Shaver
Task Force Member
A2K Program Director, Information Society Project
Yale University
-
Christoph Spennemann
Task Force Member
Legal Expert, Intellectual Property Team, Division on Investment, Technology and Enterprise (DITE)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
-
Joseph Stiglitz
Task Force Member
President
Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD)
-
John Sulston
Task Force Member
Chair of Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation
University of Manchester
-
Tim Swanson
Task Force Member
Professor
University College London
From Intellectual Property to Knowledge Governance: An Evolutionary Perspective and Its Implications for Development
133kb pdf |
Presentation: From Intellectual Property to Knowledge Governance: An Evolutionary Perspective and Its Implications for Develop
528kb pdf |
Innovation, Technical Change, and IPRs in the Development Process: A Long Term View
54kb pdf |
IPRs, Public Health, and the Pharmaceutical Industry
538kb pdf |
Multilateral Agreements and Policy Opportunities
147kb pdf This chapter analyzes the opportunities for local production and technological learning allowed by the use of some of the “flexibilities” contained in the TRIPS Agreement. The chapter is structured as follows. First, it presents the concept of TRIPS ‘flexibilities’ and the main areas where they apply. This section will briefly examine the interpretive value of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health which confirmed some of those flexibilities. Second, the chapter will explore the extent to which some of the flexibilities in the area of patent and test data protection may create a favourable policy space to promote domestic production in developing countries. Finally, the chapter will provide recommendations for developing countries in terms of both domestic and international policies. |
Mitigating Damages to Global Science from “The Anti-Commons”
344kb pdf Subtitle: New moves in ‘legal jujitsu’ to combat adverse unintended consequences of commercial exploitation of the IPR on publicly funded research results. |
Mitigating Damages to Global Science from “The Anti-Commons” Presentation
117kb pdf |
Technological Change and Technological Diffusion in Agricultural Development: How Have Proprietary Rights Contributed?
391kb pdf The chapter examines three phases of R&D in agricultural development: traditional plant breeding, the modern hybrid crop experience and the future of genetic use restriction technologies. These three phases are more important for the proprietary right systems they indicate. Traditional systems were public systems, using government supported investment and information exchange and decentralized farmer-based R&D. Modern hybrid systems are proprietary systems with in-built enforcement mechanisms, but applying only to a few of the important modern-day crop varieties (maize and sorghum). Future genetic use restrictions will extend the proprietary systems to all varieties of crops. In order to examine the future, we look at modern day experience with the hybrid systems. The finding is that a private sector-based R&D system results in enhanced rates of growth due to innovation, but combined with reduced rates of diffusion. For some reason the private sector system both fails to invest in diffusion and also disarms the effectiveness of the existing public R&D system. The extension of this system to all crop varieties is likely to crowd out the public system of investment in diffusion while encouraging a higher rate of private sector-based R&D focused on the technological frontier. |
Governing the Management and Use of Pooled Microbial Genetic Resources: Lessons from the Global Crop Commons
177kb pdf The paper highlights lessons learned over the last thirty years establishing a governance structure for the global crop commons that are of relevance to current champions of the microbial commons. It argues that the political, legal and biophysical situation in which microbial genetic resources (and their users) are located today are similar to the situation of plant genetic resources in the mid-1990s, before the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources was negotiated. Consequently, the paper suggests that it may be useful to look to the model of global network of ex situ plant genetic resources collections as a precedent to follow – even if only loosely – in developing an intergovernmentally endorsed legal substructure and governance framework for the microbial commons. |
Presentation: Governing the Management and Use of Pooled Microbial Genetic Resources: Lessons from the Global Crop Commons
208kb pdf |
IPR, Innovation, Economic Growth, and Development
122kb pdf |
Presentation: IPR, Innovation, Economic Growth, and Development
149kb pdf |
Who Is Patenting What in Brazil After TRIPS?
427kb pdf |
Prizes for Innovation in New Medicines and Vaccines
260kb pdf |
Presentation: Designing Prizes
318kb pdf |
The New Economics of International Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights
20kb pdf Our intention in this paper is to suggest that traditional concepts of the channels, determinants and effects of international technology transfer (ITT) need to be updated to reflect the new realities of global markets and policies. This is perhaps especially the case in the context of how intellectual property rights (IPRs) affect such processes. We will review the traditional approaches, noting where they come short in thinking about the new competitive landscape. We then try to place ITT into an updated framework, accounting for such elements as global production networks, R&D outsourcing, technical standards, and the emergence of open-source means of innovation and diffusion. This framework requires some reconsideration of the impacts and roles of IPRs in supporting ITT. We also overview the cross-cutting capacities of IPRs with respect to ITT in critical public goods. Conditional policy recommendations conclude the paper. |
Presentation: The New Economics of International Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights
76kb pdf |
Economic and Legal Considerations for the International Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies
318kb pdf Climate change mitigation and related environmental protection objectives have become central considerations of global economic policy. In particular, legal and regulatory policy mechanisms to support the development and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) have emerged as an essential component of multilateral negotiations for a global climate change accord. For developing and least-developed countries, climate-change mitigation obligations have important implications for growth and development priorities. These include constraints associated with the costs of access to ESTs, efficient use and integration of ESTs in production processes, and capacity development to adapt to effects of climate change on local practices in sensitive sectors such as energy, agriculture and fisheries. This paper addresses the prospects and limits of intellectual property rights (IPRs) as the classic legal mechanism of choice to incentivize innovation and dissemination of “green technologies.” The paper argues that IPRs are in some circumstances inadequate solutions to the challenge of developing and transferring ESTs. Further, some potential areas of IPR reform only shift the burden and costs of international technology transfer (ITT) to those countries that least value climate-change mitigation or those that can least afford the preconditions for effective technology transfer. Instead, IPR reform focused on stimulating innovation in ESTs need to be strategically coordinated with other policy variables that can supply a range of incentives to firms to develop, use and transfer ESTs. Further, alternative innovation models must be considered to address particular problems such as small markets where IPRs are unlikely to induce innovation, differentiated adaptation costs for ESTs in developing and least-developed economies, and the need for sustainable long-term investments in research and development (R&D) to ensure the development of technologies that can meet emerging threats to the environment. |
TRIPS Post-2005 and Access to New Antiretroviral Treatments in Southern Countries: Issues and Challenges
113kb pdf |
Empowering Digitally Integrated Scientific Research: The Pivotal Role of Copyright Law’s Limitations and Exceptions
339kb pdf |
Rethinking the Role of Clinical Trial Data in International Intellectual Property Law: The Case for a Public Goods Approach
355kb pdf |
Intellectual Property in the Twenty-First Century: Will the Developing Countries Lead or Follow?
208kb pdf |
Intellectual Property and Alternatives: Strategies for Green Innovation
318kb pdf |
Intellectual Property Rights in Preferential Trade Agreements
373kb pdf |
Presentation: Intellectual Property Rights in Preferential Trade Agreements
473kb pdf |
Intellectual Property, Access, and Supply
27kb pdf |
The Ethics of Incentives for Innovation
10kb pdf |
Presentation: Impacts of Use Restriction in Agriculture on Poor Countries
76kb pdf |