Intellectual Property and Development Task Force Meeting, Manchester 2009

133kb pdf
Mario Cimoli,
Leonardo Burlamaqui

528kb pdf
Mario Cimoli,
Leonardo Burlamaqui

54kb pdf
Roberto Mazzoleni,
Mario Cimoli,
Giovanni Dosi,
Bhaven N. Sampat

538kb pdf
Benjamin Coriat,
Luigi Orsenigo

147kb pdf
Carlos Correa

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.

344kb pdf
Paul David

Subtitle: New moves in ‘legal jujitsu’ to combat adverse unintended consequences of commercial exploitation of the IPR on publicly funded research results.

117kb pdf
Paul David

391kb pdf
Tim Swanson,
Robert E. Evenson

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.

177kb pdf
Michael Halewood

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.

208kb pdf
Michael Halewood

122kb pdf
Albert Hu,
Adam Jaffe

149kb pdf
Albert Hu,
Adam Jaffe

427kb pdf
Luigi Orsenigo,
Fabio Montobbio,
Francesco Laforgia

260kb pdf
James Love,
Tim Hubbard

318kb pdf
James Love

20kb pdf
Keith Maskus

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.

76kb pdf
Keith Maskus

318kb pdf
Keith Maskus,
Ruth Okediji

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.

113kb pdf
Benjamin Coriat,
Simon Cunningham,
Fabienne Orsi,
Mamadou Camara,
Lia Hasenclever,
Paulo Tigre

339kb pdf
Jerome Reichman,
Ruth Okediji

355kb pdf
Jerome Reichman

208kb pdf
Jerome Reichman

318kb pdf
Jerome Reichman,
Arti K. Rai,
Richard G. Newell,
Jonathan B. Wiener

373kb pdf
Pedro Roffe,
Christoph Spennemann

473kb pdf
Pedro Roffe,
Christoph Spennemann

27kb pdf
Ken Shadlen

10kb pdf
John Harris,
John Sulston

76kb pdf
Tim Swanson