Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 349–369 | Cite as

Multilingualism and the International Patent System: an Assessment of the Fairness of the Language Policy of WIPO

Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

This article provides an evaluation of the language policy of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), by focusing on the reform enacted in 2008 when the Korean language was given the status of a language of publication of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Results show that the 2008 reform entailed a reduction in the costs of access to the PCT procedures for Korean-speaking applicants of about 54%, generating about €24 million savings for them from 2009 to 2011. Further, the new language policy led to a more balanced distribution of admission and interaction costs among applicant countries. It is plausible that the 2008 reform has brought about a transfer of information costs from Korean-speaking countries to English-speaking countries and inventors fluent in English as a second language, but such negative effects have been offset by exogenous factors. This article shows under which conditions adding the Korean language could have had a positive impact on the cost-effectiveness of the language policy of the PCT system as well.

Keywords

World intellectual property organisation Patent cooperation treaty Translation costs Language policy Korean language 

JEL Classification

H40 H89 K11 O30 O31 O34 O38 O39 O50 P48 Z18 Z19 

References

  1. Archontopoulos E, Guellec D, Stevnsborg N, Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, Van Zeebroeck N (2007) When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO. Inf Econ Policy 19:103–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology: the economics of innovation and corporate strategy. The MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar
  3. Berger R (2004) Study on the cost of patenting. Roland Berger Market Resarch, MunichGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthoud A-C, Grin F, Lüdi G (eds) (2013) Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: the DYLAN project. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL (2006) Cost-benefit analysis. Concepts and practice, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (NJ)Google Scholar
  6. Cardinal L (2005) The ideological limits of linguistic diversity in Canada. J Multiling Multicult Dev 26:481–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ceccagnoli M, Gambardella A, Giuri P, Licht G, Marian M (2005) Study on evaluating the knowledge economy: what are patents actually worth? The value of patents for today’s economy and society. Final report for lot 1. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Chua SKC (2010) Singapore's language policy and its globalised concept of Bi(tri)lingualism. Curr Issues Lang Plan 11:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danguy J, Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2011) Cost-benefit analysis of the community patent. Journal Benefit-Cost Anal 2:1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Rassenfosse G, Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2012) On the price elasticity of demand for patents. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 74:58–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Rassenfosse G, Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2013) The role of fees in patent systems: theory and evidence. J Econ Surv 27:696–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2011) Impact assessment. Accompanying document to the proposal for a council regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission (2012) Europeans and their languages. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Furman N, Goldberg D, Lusin N (2010) Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education vol. fall 2009. Modern Language Association of America, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Gazzola M (2014) The evaluation of language regimes. Theory and application to multilingual patent organisations. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Gazzola M (2015) Identifying and mitigating linguistic inequalities in the management of patent information in Europe. World Patent Inf 40:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gazzola M, Volpe A (2014) Linguistic justice in IP policies: evaluating the language regime of the European patent office. Eur J Law Econ 38:47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grin F (2003) Language planning and economics. Curr Issues Lang Plan 4:1–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grin F (2005) L'enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique. Rapport au Haut Conseil de l'évaluation de l'école, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Grin F, Gazzola M (2013) Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication: theory and application through indicators. In: Berthoud A-C, Grin F, Lüdi G (eds) Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grin F, Sfreddo C, Vaillancourt F (2010) The economics of the multilingual workplace. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Guellec D, Van Pottelsberghe B (2007) The economics of the European patent system: IP policy for innovation and competition. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harhoff D, Hoisl K, Reichl B, Van Pottelsberghe B (2009) Patent validation at the country level - the role of fees and translation costs. Res Policy 38:1423–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jung SK, Norton B (2002) Language planning in Korea: the new elementary English program. In: Tollefson JW (ed) Language policies in education. Critical issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (NJ), pp. 245–266Google Scholar
  25. Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A (2004) The welfare economics of public policy: a practical approach to project and policy evaluation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  26. KIPO (2015) Annual Report 2014. Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), DaejeonGoogle Scholar
  27. Stiglitz J (2007) Knowledge as a global public good. In: Abbott FM, Cottier T, Gurry F (eds) International intellectual property in an integrated world economy. Wolters Kluwer, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  28. Tritton G, Davis R (eds) (2014) Intellectual property in Europe, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Parijs P (2007) Takling the anglophones’ free ride: fair linguistic cooperation with a global lingua franca. AILA Review 20:72–86Google Scholar
  30. Van Pottelsberghe B, François D (2009) The cost factor in patent systems. J Ind Compet Trade 9:329–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Pottelsberghe B, Mejer M (2010) The London agreement and the cost of patenting in Europe. Eur J Law Econ 29:211–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Zeebroeck N, Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, Guellec D (2009) Claiming more: the increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Res Policy 38:1006–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. WIPO (2006) Progress report on the follow up of the joint inspection Unit’s recommendations as contained in its report “review of management and administration in WIPO: budget, oversight and related issues”. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. WIPO (2007a) Addition of Korean as a language of publication. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. WIPO (2007b) Flexibility formula for administration of the PCT. World Intellectual Property Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. WIPO (2008) World patent report. A statistical review. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. WIPO (2011) PCT Applicant’s guide – international phase. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. WIPO (2013) PCT yearly review. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. WIPO (2014) Estimating a PCT fee elasticity. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. WIPO (2015a) PCT yearly review. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. WIPO (2015b) Supplement to "estimating a PCT fee elasticity" study. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Zajac EE (1995) Political economy of fairness. The MIT Press, Cambridge (MA)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group Economics and Language (REAL), Department of Education StudiesHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations