Document Type
Article
Abstract
A technology continues to develop, so does the importance of intellectual property (IP) in the balance of trade. As a result of this new-found focus on IP many developed countries welcomed the discussion of procurement and protection of innovation. The Uruguay Round of Negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) produced a new agreement representing a two-fold achievement: first, the agreement devised a system of enforcing international IP rights; second, it addressed some concerns within the developing countries, namely, the strengthening of their technological basis.
In this Article, I will discuss the possibilities and limits for developing countries to achieve technological development within the parameters set by both the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS Agreement) and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). Both agreements are integral parts of the WTO Agreement. The new standards laid out in the TRIPS Agreement and the SCM Agreement are still only in a test phase. There are innumerable questions dealing with the application of these international instruments and their limits. From a nation’s sovereign right to refuse to enforce public health patents, to balance of national interests towards IP protection and the promotion of technology, there are still many gaps to be filled in order to shape the international system of IP.
In this Article, I will argue that developing countries, eager to develop their own technological base, should consider the decentralized U.S. model of Research and Development (R&D). This generally successful model looks at commercializing inventions made by institutions directly or indirectly connected to the government. Its adoption, however, should be pursued with caution, since U.S. system of innovative procurement may be actionable under the WTO via SCM Agreement provisions, which deal with subsidized R&D.
In order to draw the necessary commitment from developing and developed countries, policymakers should interpret the TRIPS Agreement and the SCM Agreement with the goal of balancing private property rights with the power of a nation to implement its core economic and health policies. With the liberalizing of national borders towards foreign goods and services, policymakers around the world struggle to devise a system which can strengthen the technological basis of a nation, thereby serving as a legitimate way to compete internationally. Upon analyzing the U.S. experience, I will argue that a similar system should be implemented in Brazil, where similar legislation is being considered, thus avoiding the pitfalls of illegal subsidies.
Recommended Citation
Irene Ribeiro Dubowy,
Subsidies Code, Trips Agreement, and Technological Development: Some Consideration for Developing Countries,
8 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y
(2003).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jtlp/vol8/iss1/2