This thesis examines the emerging global regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property rights, and its effects on developing countries. It analyses in particular, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). The TRIPs Agreement is considered as a contentious issue between developed and developing countries, where opinions at the WTO negotiations have been divided between these two categories of countries. This is the case for all areas of the disciplines of intellectual property rights recognised in the TRIPs Agreement, except the concept of geographical indications. The negotiations related to this do not involve a strict division of views between developed and developing countries. While the two most powerful Member States, namely, the EU and the US are divided in their views at the negotiations related to geographical indications, developing countries have taken the side of either of these two Member States. This thesis demonstrates how the concept of geographical indications could also become a conflict between developed and developing countries, unless the WTO takes some measures to prevent this. In illustrating this point, the thesis relies on three main elements. Firstly, the thesis analyses the position of developing countries at the WTO, demonstrating the existence of a series of deficiencies inherent in the multilateral trade framework, such as unequal bargaining powers. Secondly, by analysing the EU experience in the area, the thesis examines potential problems that could arise in the harmonisation of geographical indications, such as diverse normative concepts. Finally, it evaluates the more subtle influences imposed on developing countries and other countries with weaker bargaining powers on their interpretation of the TRIPs provisions, through individually negotiated bilateral agreements for the protection of geographical indications. Based on the changing attitudes of the developed Member States in the multilateral framework, this thesis argues that certain measures could be undertaken by the WTO to prevent a potential future developed and developing country conflict with respect to geographical indications.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This research examines the effect of a nation's IP environment on the IP management (IPM) strategies of foreign innovative firms. It introduces the conc;ept of a national institutional system of intellectual property protection and enforcement (ISI) to capture the characteristics of a country's IP system. The ISI comprises: (i) formal (de jure) substantive and subordinate laws (including supranational, national and sub-national laws, infrastructure and systems) and (ii) informal (de facto) rules of behaviour of institutional and economic actors. This research reveals that a national ISI can have a significant determinant effect on the IPM strategies of firms at both a macro-level (i.e. expansion decisions and entry-mode choice) and a micro-level (i.e. decisions taken in the host country to manage IPRs). This study identifies and compares the IS Is of two developing countries, namely, India and China, which provide only weak IP protection and enforcement and yet are significant sources of infringing activity. We examine how the ISI of each country impacts on firm strategy, with a focus on three high-technology industries, namely, biosciences, advanced engineering and software-electronics. In-depth interviews were conducted with managers of foreign innovative firms that have operations in India or China, or both. Interview data provide insights into their perceptions and experiences of the ISI of each country and the IPM strategies they deploy to protect and enforce their IPRs. This study reveals strong similarities and differences between the ISIs of both countries, and that this has a varying effect on the IPM strategies of firms depending on the industry context. In particular, we find that the informal rules of behaviour have a greater effect on firm strategy than do formal characteristics of the ISI. We explain why firms from the three focal industries adopt different IPM strategies in response to the ISI of each country, and how these vary in their effectiveness by industry and between the two countries.

Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement are a set of treaty norms that provide express recognition for policy objectives that are fundamental to international intellectual property protection. Not only do they identify the goals of technological innovation and dissemination, they also acknowledge the wider public interest behind the Agreement. Given the content of Article 7 and 8, it is not surprising that these provisions are regarded as important interpretative devices that permit a contextual view of the TRIPS Agreement, such that Member States can tailor their intellectual property laws to suit national levels of development. Within the WTO, Articles 7 and 8 have acquired influence at the policy level through the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. Yet, these provisions have received only limited recognition from the Dispute Settlement Body. Hence the importance of the 2001 decision in US-s2JJ Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998, where the Panel identified Article 7 as an expression of the good faith principle. In this capacity, not only does Article 7 function as an interpretative device' also requires substantive compliance, operating as an effective source of law. Beyond the TRIPS Agreement Articles 7 and 8 have been utilised within the WIPO Development Agenda and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This, together with increasing recognition at the domestic level, has resulted in an enhanced status within the wider policy arena and an enhanced legal status, such that the interpretation and application of Articles 7 and 8 is now beyond the exclusive control of the WTO. Consequently, as policy instruments, interpretative devices or substantive rules, Articles 7 and 8 defend a perspective on intellectual property regulation that is fully supportive of social as well as economic development in all participating nations whatever their stage of development.

This thesis investigates the role of TRIPS as the first international document to grant patent protection to biotechnology invention, in bringing technological advancement and developmental progression to user-developing countries, with intend of developing biotechnology industry locally.

In recent years, particularly since 1995, intellectual property law has become an integral component of trade, whereas in the past it used to be a fundamental element of development policy. This shift in the primary concept and function of the intellectual property system, due to its association with global trade, demands massive changes in national regimes, which may or may not serve the interest of their citizens and other domestic stakeholders. Such an issue becomes crucial when it is related to basic human necessities such as food and livelihood. It is particularly important when the actors involved are developing and least developed countries (LDCs). While the development of national intellectual property systems requires careful governmental and administrative development because of their important relationship to livelihood, such a need has been overshadowed by the almost coercive position adopted in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). One can argue that the TRIPS agreement is in many ways a defence of sophisticated developed economy trade protection. However, despite this general stance, Article 27.3.b of the TRIPS agreement, in principle, offers an opportunity for countries to develop an effective sui generis system to protect plants and other related materials. Whilst Article 27.3.b of the TRIPS agreement, on its face, offers a powerful freedom, there is enough evidence that the international community, particularly various actors from developed countries, is increasingly circumscribing this discretionary autonomy in many different ways. This thesis, therefore, analyses the spirit of Art. 27.3.b of the TRIPS agreement so as to understand what exactly it means when it states that plants can be protected under an effective sui generis system. For the philosophical underpinning, it considers the "Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of the State", Rawls' concept of "Distributive Justice" particularly in relation to the development of the farmer's right, and Gewirth's moral and ethical philosophy. These established theories are considered in the international law context. Finally, the thesis analyses the current situation in the area, advances an alternative framework for the negotiations of sui generis system by particular States and suggests guidelines for 'effective' plant sui generis systems under Art. 27.3.b of the TRIPS agreement.

The question of this thesis is: "when is the rightholder's refusal to license a software interface an abuse of dominant position." Using the principles of law and economics, I will approach this question from the consumers' perspective. The critical themes of this thesis are the distinction between innovative/non-innovative markets and the role of indirect switching costs of consumers in anti-abuse cases. Developing the studies of Klemperer (1987) and other authors on switching costs, I hypothesise that a dominant software incumbent abuses his market power if he prejudices consumers without justification. The consumers will suffer a detriment when their switching costs (S) are higher than the maximum utility surplus brought to the consumers by an entrant's product, or when the incumbent intentionally raises switching costs without justification. To remedy this, the incumbent should grant the entrant a license to access any interfaces or data formats which could reduce S. A refusal to license may result in an abuse, unless it is justified on the grounds of sunk costs and free riding. The decision to grant should be made by striking a balance between the costs and the benefits of granting access, in a process whereby both the entrant and the incumbent share the burden of proof - the essentiality-justification mechanism. Cost-benefit analysis, case studies, information system study, game theory, expected utility and probability assessment are the toolkit in this research.

Private international law divides the world into territories, each with its own court system and laws. The internet presents challenges to this neat division. It is difficult to identify where an activity takes place on the internet. Wrongs on the internet leave many questions unanswered in transnational litigation. This paper addresses the private international law aspects of cross-border civil wrongs on the internet. Chapter A introduces the internet, and aims to simplify the technical issues. Chapter B asks which court has jurisdiction in a case of wrongs on the internet. The focus is on two sets of rules commonly applied around the globe: the service abroad provisions and the special jurisdiction provisions. The chapter aims to advance general principles applicable in cases of cross-border wrongs committed on the internet, as to the place where a wrong is committed, and the place where damage is suffered. The issue whether a court can grant an injunction against a foreign defendant in respect of foreign conduct is also explored. The exercise of jurisdiction under the service abroad provisions is discretionary. Chapter C examines the forum (non) conveniens discretion in the context of wrongs on the internet. It concludes that, of the US jurisdictional principles developed in internet cases, the sliding scale test should be treated with caution, but the effects test (targeting) should be a factor that is taken into account, in exercising the discretion. Chapter D asks which law applies to a wrong on the internet, concentrating on the divergent choice of law rules in tort in Australia, Canada, the UK and those proposed in the EU. The two chapters that follow consider wrongs to which the internet environment is particularly susceptible, and which deserve separate treatment: intellectual property infringements (Chapter E) and defamation (Chapter F). The final topic, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments relating to wrongs on the internet, is the subject of Chapter G. The paper rejects the suggestions that new rules should be developed for wrongs on the internet, and concludes that the existing private international law rules are largely workable in the internet context, but require some flexibility in order to be adaptable.