| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 100 === Since 1994, attention has been focused on WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as the most influential international intellectual property rights (IPR) agreement. It establishes minimum universal standards in all areas of intellectual property, and secures universal patent protection. But the implementation of TRIPS has put developing countries in various predicaments. The profit-driven pharmaceutical companies became less willing to tolerate compulsory licenses. Their extensive influence thus forced some states to struggle against public health crisis. Although WTO adopted the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health, the sovereign capacity of developing countries are still being gradually eroded. In developing countries, the proportion of patent grants to foreigners tends to be much higher than patents granted to their own nationals, and royalties paid to foreign countries do not necessarily lead to an increase of technology transfer. The enormous transformation in the IPR law-making context was the consequences of globalization and technology revolution in the information age.
Developed countries make uses of changing international norms in order to consolidate their status in global economy, which results in higher and higher intellectual property standards. However, the effect of this one-way ratchet in elevating the degree of development in poorer countries is dubious. The global ratchet for IP consists of waves of bilateral trade negotiations. A number developing country finally had to agree to free trade agreements contained TRIPS-plus provisions and forego or limit their right to use TRIPS flexibilities. US Trade Representative (USTR) has principal responsibility for administering U.S. trade agreements because they serve to ensure profit of US’s intellectual property-related industry. The EU also seeks to secure TRIPS-plus provisions through similar mechanism.
This paper analyzes the international IPR law-making activities, outline several possible approaches for developing countries, and discuss the practical aspects of these solutions. In the final part, this research will demonstrate the conflicts in international IPR law-making activities between the North and the South, and concludes by reevaluating the approaches presented.
|
|---|
