International intellectual property rights

Extraits

[...] Few times later, in March 1986 and six month before the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations, twelve chief executive officers formed the IPC: Intellectual Property Committee representing Bristol-Meyers, CBS, Du Pont, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Monsanto and Pfizer, to make the intellectual property a new issue of the global economy. This coalition will be far more effective than the previous one and we can even say that these “twelve public corporations made public law for the world”. Transnational companies' influence: The power of a private authority As societies and economies become internationalized and integrated, organized interests follow the same principle. Nowadays, transnational corporations are clearly a central feature in the global economy, controlling vast resources and operating in all significant markets. [...]

[...] Eight of the twelve companies were among the top 50 United States exporters and as a consequence, economic power of the firms was recognized by the American state and an authority was conferred to them. They had access to resources unknown by most interest or other groups. Their expertise gave them an additional source of authority. Furthermore, to determine the scale and scope of foreign piracy, the government has had to rely upon cost estimates provided by affected firms. The IPC's goal was to prepare the Uruguay round of GATT, in order to make the intellectual property a new concern of the institution. [...]

[...] The decreasing rate of copy in the South will redirect the production in the North. The global effect will depend on the copy rate in the South countries, the workforce offer and the innovation rate. Other researchers demonstrated the limited consequences of the Helpman's theory with other arguments such as the decrease of the customers' demand for the products, the specificities of the products or the legislation in the home country. Innovation rate (Helpman) If the innovation rate is limited to the firms of the North, a reduction of the copy will tend to have a positive impact on the innovation. [...]

[...] The role of the Lobby in the Intellectual Property decisions The lobbyist groups, in combination with the 12 transnational companies, played a major role too in the creation and the development of the Intellectual Property Rights, direct consequence of their tighten relations with the United States government. The country is, indeed, particularly sensible to lobby requests. The “adversarial system” made the United States' lobbies a much more ideological than in other countries. Moreover, members of Congress are more easily influenced by the interest groups and the practice of lobbying is old and well established in the US. Congress adopted new amendments to the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 that directly responded to the demands of the IP lobby. [...]

[...] Yoffie used another definition: the US economy became more internationalized, many firms saw government as a potential ally against foreign companies. Firms became politically active because the government would protect US-held Private authorities saw the US government, and by extension the GATT as a potential ally in its quest to expand international rules covering IP, and when the United States government had accepted the private sector's trade based conception of IP, the Intellectual Property Committee saw the state as an ally. The firms need international institutions to further and legitimize the private actors' goal. [...]