Skip to main content

Trade-Offs and Transparency

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See MPI Principles Part 1.

  2. 2.

    Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round, Vol. 31, 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994).

  3. 3.

    Daniel Gervais describes this as the “coercion narrative”; see “TRIPS and Development”, in Gervais (2007), see also Gervais (2012), at 11–15.

  4. 4.

    These would be the lowering of tariffs and removal of quotas under the GATT Agreement in particular.

  5. 5.

    There are a limited number of exceptions to this in the form of plurilateral agreements the detail of which could not be agreed upon in the Uruguay round. An example is the agreement on Government Procurement.

  6. 6.

    There is much literature on these justifications; a summary of which is beyond the scope of this comment.

  7. 7.

    The United States negotiating position, the “leaked text” can be found at http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/tpp-10feb2011-us-text-ipr-chapter.pdf.

  8. 8.

    An example is the report of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office, Ian Hargreaves “Digital Opportunity: A review of Intellectual Property and Growth” available at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm.

  9. 9.

    United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, signed on 12 April 2006 available at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/peru-tpa/final-text. For a summary of the opposition to the FTA see “Peru-U.S. NAFTA Expansion: Overview” at http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=521.

  10. 10.

    Australia United States Free Trade Agreement, signed on 18 May 2004, available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/ausfta/.

  11. 11.

    Australian Productivity Commission “Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements Research Report”, 13 December 2010, Recommendation 4, Chapter 14 see http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/trade-agreements (last accessed 17 September 2011). Also the Productivity Commission did not comment on the detail of the increased standard directly, but rather opposes the framework of the FTA as a top-down model and recommended that intellectual property standards be negotiated in more detail through a bottom-up integration model. For further discussion see Frankel et al. (2013).

  12. 12.

    Ministry of Economic Development "Review of the Patents Act 1953; The Pharmaceutical Patent Term in New Zealand Discussion Paper" (June 2003). In this report the government recommends that New Zealand not enact patent term extension because of the cost. See also Frankel et al. (2013).

  13. 13.

    “Government copyright review delay confirms fears about TPPA”, 19 July 2013, Press Release: Green Party, at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1307/S00315/government-copyright-review-delay-confirms-fears-about-tppa.htm.

  14. 14.

    The predecessor to the TPP, an open accession FTA known as P4, expressly provided that countries retain the policy space to protect traditional knowledge. See Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4) Agreement, available at http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/2-P4.php.

  15. 15.

    Helfer (2004), p. 1.

  16. 16.

    For a discussion of protection traditional knowledge in FTAs see Frankel (2012).

  17. 17.

    Convention on Biological Diversity, available at http://www.cbd.int/.

  18. 18.

    The United States signed but did not ratify the CBD.

  19. 19.

    The demanders of TRIPS-plus intellectual property do not face the same difficulties both because they have expertise and resources but also because they are not negotiating the deal for the first time.

  20. 20.

    Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, May 2011, available at http://www.ustr.gov/acta.

  21. 21.

    MPI Principle, 15.

  22. 22.

    For a discussion of public participation models and democratic legitimacy see Bennett and Colón-Ríos (2013).

  23. 23.

    See for example Shapiro (2005), p. 341.

  24. 24.

    For example this has been done in the electricity industry, see Bennett and Colón-Ríos, supra note 22.

  25. 25.

    Statement of Professor Daniel Gervais, Vanderbilt University Law School before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, 113th Congress, 1st Session, “A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project” 16 May 2013.

  26. 26.

    Frankel (2008, 2009, p. 1023).

  27. 27.

    MPI Principles, Part 3.

  28. 28.

    WTO Panel Report, US-Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, adopted 27 July 2000.

  29. 29.

    Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference, 27 June 2013, available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/vip_dc/vip_dc_8.pdf.

  30. 30.

    MPI Principles, 18.

References

  1. Bennett M, Colón-Ríos J (2013) Public participation in New Zealand’s regulatory context. In: Frankel S, Ryder D (eds) Recalibrating behaviour: smarter regulation in a global world, LexisNexis

  2. Frankel S (2008) The legitimacy and purpose of intellectual property chapters in FTAs. In: Buckley R, Lo VI, Boulle L (eds) Challenges to multilateral trade the impact of bilateral, preferential and regional agreements. Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 185–199

  3. Frankel S (2009) Challenging trips-plus agreements: the potential utility of non-violation disputes. J Int Econ Law 12(4):1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Frankel S (2012) Attempts to protect indigenous culture through free trade agreements. In: Graber C, Kuprecht K, Lai J (eds) International trade in indigenous cultural heritage: legal and policy issues. Edward Elgar, pp 118–143

  5. Frankel S, Lewis MK, Nixon C, Yeabsley J (2013) The web of trade agreements and alliances, and impacts on regulatory autonomy. In: Frankel S, Ryder D (eds) Recalibrating behaviour: smarter regulation in a global world. LexisNexis

  6. Gervais D (ed) (2007) Intellectual property, trade and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  7. Gervais D (2012) The TRIPS Agreement: drafting history and analysis, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell

  8. Helfer L (2004) Regime shifting: the TRIPS agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale J Int Law 29:1

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shapiro M (2005) ‘Deliberative,’ ‘Independent’ technocracy v. democratic politics: will the globe echo the E.U.? Law Contemp Prob 68:341

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susy Frankel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frankel, S. Trade-Offs and Transparency. IIC 44, 913–919 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0124-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intellectual Property
  • World Trade Organization
  • Intellectual Property Protection
  • Trips Agreement
  • Patent Term Extension