[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

Owen Lippert

Canada's trade minister Pierre Pettigrew, when not jumping fences and dodging tear gas canisters at the recent World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, found himself appointed to head a committee to examine the implementation of an international treaty passed in 1994. The treaty in question, the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), required that developed countries such as Canada and the US immediately implement detailed improvements to their intellectual property protections, for example, patents, copyrights and trademarks. The developing countries were given a deadline of January 1, 2000, and the least developed countries have until January 1, 2005 to implement the TRIPS agreement. Pettigrew has his work cut out for him.

Recently, Margalit Edelman of the US-based Alexis de Tocqueville Institute and I surveyed 5 recent government and industry assessments of the intellectual property laws in the 135 World Trade Organization (WTO) signatory countries. We estimated that 34 of the 76 developing countries have yet to pass all the necessary laws to protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks. In addition, we found that 50 percent of 24 developed countries may not be in full compliance with their TRIPS obligations. Indeed, Canada's own compliance with TRIPS is in some doubt, as two WTO challenges to our patent law are currently under way.

As a result, January 2000 is a very timely moment for The Fraser Institute to release a new book, Competitive Strategies for the Protection of Intellectual Property. The book brings together essays from several leading scholars on intellectual property rights and trade.¹

When TRIPS was passed in 1994, it did, and still does generate considerable debate in developing and developed countries. The book tries to answer some of the questions raised by TRIPS, for example:

• What are the economic, social, and health care benefits to developing countries of higher levels of protection for intellectual property rights (IPRs)?
• How should countries re-fashion their domestic patent and trademark legislation to abide not just by the letter but also the spirit of TRIPS?
• How will IPRs continue to evolve in new trade talks, such as the proposed hemispheric agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the "millennium round" of global talks kicked off in Seattle in November 1999?

The answers provide practical public policy advice as well as intellectual and economic arguments for the increased protection of intellectual property. As we are now beyond the "battle in Seattle" and the passing of the January 1, 2000 TRIPS deadline for developing countries, these prescriptions could prove useful for countries which have yet to implement TRIPS, including such South American economic stars as Chile and Argentina.

The arguments and evidence provided should also prove beneficial here in Canada, where intellectual property rights, while greatly improved, are not free from assault. Today one hears calls to bring back the compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical drugs, to deny patents to legitimate inventions such as the "Harvard mouse," and to not enforce copyright on foreign internet content.

To be sure, the topic of intellectual property rights may seem, on one hand, not all that compelling and, on the other hand, all too complicated. Yet we are surrounded by dramas, drugs, and devices which, if their creators had had no expectation of protection from intellectual theft, would probably not have been brought to market. It is no exaggeration to say that the world we know is not just the world of ideas made real, but made real and profitable.

As to complexity, it is true that the discussion appears as all-too-clear self-interest in all-too-obtuse jargon. To put things into perspective, remember that in the Middle Ages up to 90 percent of Europe's wealth came from land ownership. As a result, the law of the times developed elaborate definitions of and protection for property rights in land. Just ask a lawyer to define what "fee simple" really means in order to get really confused. Today we live in an economy deriving ever more of its income from technological advances based on research and human ingenuity. Modern capitalism's increasing dependence on intellectual property has allowed for qualitatively higher levels of efficiency, productivity, and quality of life. For the sake of ensuring continued technological advancement, improved health care, and more amusing amusements, the educated and committed individual should take the time to learn more about intellectual property rights.

Redefining intellectual property rights upwards could prove a significant boost to ever stronger capitalism in our new century. Pierre Pettigrew won't have to revert to his Seattle strategy and jump any barricades to get a copy of Competitive Strategies; we'll send him one.

Note

[Competitive Strategies for the Protection of Intellectual Property, edited by Owen Lippert, is available from The Fraser Institute for $27.23 per copy including shipping, handling, and GST. Please call 1-800-665-3558 to order.]

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday June 9, 1999.