The principal public policy rationale for protection of intellectual property is that it provides direct, socially beneficial incentives to innovate, while also facilitating further innovation by mandating public disclosure of the patented technology (Pardey, et. al., 2003). This indeed encourages innovators and R&D practitioners to pursue research as they are ensured to fully benefit from the fruits of their work. This stimulates further innovation as other researchers collect new insights from the diclosed IPR-protected technologies.
IP protection also have positive implications on the economy, as experienced by many. Industries are developed from new IPs creating opportunities for income and employment. Japan for instance, has a long list of successful business start-ups emerging from new technologies that were protected. There is the Toyota Group, Matsushita, Sony, and Honda to mention a few. Moreover, IPR ensures that the infrastructure necessary for the growth of industries and other sectors are protected.
There are arguments, however warning on the downside of IP protection in the developing world. Among the most debated issues is the access to affordable medicines in the developing countries. As IP rights are strengthened all over the world, the prices of medicines are likely to increase limitng the poor's access to medicines. In this case, the social cost of IP protection seems to have exceeded its benefits. Some experts believe that for the developing countries, stronger IPR is not necessarily better, at least in the short run.
References:
Pardey, D., B.D. Wright, C. Nottenburg, E. Binenbaum, and P. Zambrano. 2003. “Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Biotechnology.” In Research at a Glance posted at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp70.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment