Foreign Intellectual Property Rights Research Articles

International Trade on IPR, Economic Growth, and FDI in Indonesia’s Manufacturing Sector

Purpose – Indonesia has always experienced a deficit in the balance of payments in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) sector. However, it is hoped that the high value of Indonesian IPR imports will be beneficial in increasing the attractiveness of FDI, encouraging economic growth, and increasing IPR exports. The purpose of this research is to examine the causal relationship between IPR imports (MIPR), IPR exports (XIPR), incoming FDI in the manufacturing sector (FDI), and economic growth (GGDP) in the case of Indonesia. Design/Methodology/Approach – The data used in this research are time series data from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2021. These data are analyzed using the VECM approach. Findings – The study results show that MIPR has dominated Indonesia’s total trade in this sector. The contribution of import value is 95 percent compared to exports, which are only 5 percent. The VECM estimation results show a one-way Granger causality relationship from the independent variables (FDI, GGDP, and XIPR) to MIPR as a dependent variable. In a short-term causality relationship, IPR imports encourage FDI inflows into Indonesia. Then, FDI in the manufacturing sector significantly impacts Indonesia’s IPR exports. Research Implications – Indonesia’s outflow of money to pay for the use of foreign IPR can encourage the entry of FDI in the manufacturing sector, resulting in a technology transfer that produces domestic IPR, which can be sold abroad.

Intellectual property rights and trade: The exceptional case of GMOs

AbstractThis paper examines how foreign intellectual property rights (IPRs) affect US bilateral exports of genetically modified crops (GMOs). We apply the structural gravity model to examine GMO trade between the United States and the countries that comprise the rest of the world. Our econometric method includes the Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood estimator. We use panel data including measures of countries’ IPR regimes, plant patentability, plant variety rights, GMO regulations and asynchronous approvals of GMOs. Results show the United States tends to export fewer GMO crops to countries with strong IPR regimes, plant patentability and plant variety rights. These results are consistent with the market power effect, where the United States restricts exports to countries with strong protections to extract monopoly prices. Second, enforcement of IPRs strengthens the market power effect. Third, the market power effect is strong alongside with GMO regulations and asynchronous approvals. Fourth, the market power effect is larger for self‐pollinating crops vs. hybrids. These findings are robust across a variety of specifications. However, we also find a price premium in countries with less ease of US market access, with more domestic production of GMOs, and with weak traceability requirements. These features play a stronger role than IPRs in determining price.

Intellectual property rights protection and quality upgrading: Evidence from China

This study analyzes the effect of domestic and foreign intellectual property rights (IPR) protection on quality upgrading. We build a tractable model of heterogeneous firms, endogenous innovation scale, and endogenous quality choice. The model shows that IPR protection affects firms’ export quality through two opposing channels: the innovation and threshold effects, which promote and inhibit quality upgrading, respectively. We examine the overall effect of these channels using firm-level data from China across 2000–2007. We find that: (ⅰ) both domestic and foreign IPR protection positively affect export quality upgrading, so innovation effect is dominant; (ⅱ) the impact of domestic IPR protection is greater than that of foreign IPR protection; and (iii) various methods, such as generalized method of moments and difference in differences, are used to test the conclusions of this study, indicating robust results.

Trgovina krivotvorenom robom u Srbiji - metodološki pristup i kvantifikacija

The paper represents the first step in quantifying the categories of goods with the highest risk of being counterfeit during import into Serbia. Firstly, we present a methodology for quantifying the level of counterfeiting, its advantages, and its limitations. Secondly, we determine the product categories most likely to contain counterfeit products. Likewise, by using the OECD methodology, the GTRIC-p indicator for Serbia was formed, enabling comparison with OECD member countries. Based on the results, Serbia does not significantly differ from EU countries in terms of structure and product categories most at risk. The negative effects of imports of counterfeit products are borne mainly by the foreign intellectual property rights holders whose counterfeit products are imported into Serbia. In this context, despite the legal framework in place, incentives for its proper implementation are questionable.

Yabancı Fikri Mülkiyet Haklarının İngiltere’de Yargılanabilirliği - Bir Avrupa Perspektifiyle

On what basis can courts adjudicate a case that involves an intellectual property (IP) right crossing national boundaries? The primary purpose of this article is to provide a brief answer to this question (the justiciability of foreign IP rights) under UK law within the wider context of the EU law. It concentrates on the justiciability of three main IP rights - copyrights, trade marks and patents. It further explains the current architecture of the legal framework applicable to UK courts and within the EU. It also explores recent jurisprudence on justiciability in the UK courts and in the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) in the context of claims related to IP rights with foreign elements. It provides a few conclusions to determine to what extent the current case law is consistent and whether solely accepting justiciability of a foreign IP right is enough to provide access to justice for IP holders.

Anti-foreign bias in the court: Welfare explanation and evidence from Canadian intellectual property litigations.

Are judges concerned, in the same way as policy makers, with the effects of their decisions on national welfare? In this paper, we analyze this question by examining the outcomes of intellectual property rights (IPR) litigations between domestic and foreign firms. We use a simple model of oligopoly, in which IPR takes the form of a more efficient production technology, to illustrate how antiforeign bias varies across cases when judges have welfare concerns. The predictions of the model are tested using data on all Canadian IPR cases over a four-year period. We find that foreign firms have about 25 percentage points lower probability of protecting their IPR in Canadian courts relative to domestic firms. We also find that courts' decisions are aligned with national welfare maximization principles so that foreign firms are less likely to win in those cases when the implied welfare gains from not protecting foreign IPR are greater. These findings are robust to controlling for endogenous selection of firms into litigation.

Bilateral intra-industry trade flows and intellectual property rights protections: further evidence from the United Kingdom

ABSTRACTThis paper investigates the relationship between the United Kingdom's (hereafter referred as UK) bilateral intra-industry trade (IIT) and foreign intellectual property rights (IPRs) protections. The empirical investigation is based on pooled UK data and benefits from the theoretical distinction between horizontal and vertical IIT. It also estimates a gravity equation for international trade using both fixed and random effects models. We then extend the analysis by employing the GMM system for dynamic panel models. The principal findings suggest that the UK's IIT is stimulated when the level of a trading partner's IPRs and its imitative ability are considered jointly. However, when IPRs and imitation abilities are considered separately, their disparate effects are not an important factor in determining UK IIT flows.

History, Institutions, and Intellectual Property Rights: Debate between the United States and China

Using a point-counterpoint format, this panel seeks to address the key and timely debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between China and the United States (U.S.). Today, the U.S. takes a strong position on improving and enforcing IPR, especially calling out countries such as China and India for intellectual property violations of technology and cultural content such as films and television. Yet Peng (2013) and Peng, Ahlstrom, Carraher, & Shi (2017) have argued that, during the 19th century the U.S. was not a leading IPR advocate as it is today, but rather, was a leading IPR violator, mostly pilfering British inventions and cultural content. Developing an institution-based view of IPR history, they identify three underlying theoretical mechanisms: path dependence, long-term processes, and institutional transitions. It is sometimes argued that both the U.S. refusal to protect foreign IPR in the 19th century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet U.S. IPR demands embody rational responses to their respective situations. However, in the long run, institutional transitions in favor of better IPR protection are possible. Finally, they draw on the IPR history in over 10 other countries to develop a more globally generalizable framework. Begging to differ, Vertinsky argues that China is not in the same position today as the U.S. was in the 19th century, and that the long-term processes affecting its evolution will be quite different. The U.S. and other Western powers should consider the use of any bargaining power that they have now to compel China to enhance IPR protection before it becomes obsolete.

China and intellectual property rights: A challenge to the rule of law

China is not meeting its international obligations to protect intellectual property rights (IPRs), harming the innovation process in China and elsewhere. We review the benefits of IPR protection and discuss the magnitude and cost of China’s IPR violations. We also emphasize that these violations undermine the international rule of law and impair China’s legitimacy as a leader in evolving global governance institutions. We criticize the argument that China will endogenously improve IPR protection due to internal pressures from its domestic IP sector as the United States and some other countries did in the past. China’s governance institutions are very different from those of the liberal Western democracies, past and present, as China has a weak internal rule of law, a fragmented governance system, and cultural traditions that favor collective over individual rights. As China’s IP sector develops, its IPR governance regime might even be used as a strategic tool to further disadvantage foreign IPR holders. We argue that China should play a lead role in any international IPR reforms but that it must first establish legitimacy by meeting its current international IPR commitments. We conclude that other countries should take action to pressure China to meet its IPR obligations.

An institution-based view of global IPR history

Leveraging the use of history to advance international business research, this article focuses on the crucial debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between the United States and China. Ironically, during the 19th century the United States was not a leading IPR advocate as it is today, but was a leading IPR violator. Developing an institution-based view of IPR history, we identify three underlying theoretical mechanisms that help to explain IPR in the two countries – path dependence, long-term processes, and institutional transitions. We argue that both the US refusal to protect foreign IPR in the 19th century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet US IPR demands embody rational responses to their respective situations. However, given long-term processes with intensifying isomorphic pressures, institutional transitions in favor of better IPR protection are quite possible. Finally, going above and beyond these two countries, we draw on the IPR history in over ten other countries to develop a more globally generalizable framework, which in turn contributes to the key question of how history matters.

History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property

ABSTRACTThis article responds to recent calls for organizational research to address larger, more globally relevant questions and to pay attention to history, by analyzing the crucial debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between the United States and China. Despite the recent US position, the United States has not always been a leading IPR advocate. Rather, it was a leading IPR violator during the nineteenth century. An institution-based view of IPR history suggests that both the US refusal to protect foreign IPR in the nineteenth century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet US IPR demands represent rational choices. However, as cost-benefit considerations change institutional transitions are possible. We predict that to the same extent the United States voluntarily agreed to strengthen IPR protection when its economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, China will similarly improve its IPR protection.

Who Owns the Intellectual Property Rights to Chinese Genetically Modified Rice? Evidence from Patent Portfolio Analysis.

Who Owns the Intellectual Property Rights to Chinese Genetically Modified Rice? Evidence from Patent Portfolio Analysis.

DOES FOREIGN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION AFFECT US EXPORTS AND FDI?

Several previous studies have examined the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, exports, and FDI independently. However, very few prior analyses jointly examined the linkages between IPR protection and multiple modes of international transactions. This paper investigates how foreign IPR protection affects how US firms jointly serve overseas markets through exports and FDI. Using both static pooled regressions and a dynamic panel GMM estimator on a panel data of 53 countries, we examine whether stronger foreign IPR protection stimulates US international transactions. The empirical results suggest that foreign countries that strengthen their IPR protection, especially those with strong imitative ability, can attract more international transactions from the USA.

An institution-based view of IPR protection

There is a great deal of frustration regarding the lack of progress on intellectual property rights (IPR) protection in China. This article leverages the historical episode in most of the 19th century during which the United States was the leading IPR violator. Great Britain as the superpower of the time sought but failed to convince the United States to improve IPR protection. Advancing an institution-based view of IPR protection, I argue that both the U.S. refusal to protect foreign IPR in the 19th century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet U.S. demands on IPR protection are rational. However, if history is any guide, the future outlook is not depressing. In 1891, the United States voluntarily agreed to protect the IPR of foreign works, because the U.S. economy became sufficiently developed and U.S. IPR started to be pirated elsewhere. Drawing lessons from this episode of history, I predict that IPR protection will significantly improve when Chinese IPR are widely pirated by foreign violators outside of China.

The Influence and Illusion of China's New Left

The 2008 global financial crisis was a wake-up call for China’s leadership about the potential limits of the free market system to achieve optimum development policy outcomes. The 30-year consensus among China’s leadership has been that economic policy should be primarily market-centric and efficiency-first. However, there is now a growing divergence of opinion among Chinese intellectuals on whether China should continue this fundamental course.

Does the Protection of Foreign Intellectual Property Rights Stimulate Innovation in the US?

Although standard theories suggest that patent protection helps stimulate innovative activities, some new theories argue the opposite. Empirical studies do not generate conclusive results either. This paper investigates empirically the impacts of foreign patent reforms on innovation in the US, using data on successful patent applications in the US over 33 years and major IPR reforms in 21 countries, in addition to the patent reforms in the US and the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO. We find that the TRIPS Agreement has had significant impacts on innovation in the US, which highlights the importance of international cooperation in patent protection. However, the effects of strengthening patent protection by individual countries are not statistically significant.This result seems to imply that the US market is already sufficiently large/profitable to provide innovation incentives in the US and therefore further strengthening foreign patent protection simply increases the US innovators’ rent, but not their innovation.

Impact of Trade Openness and Technology Transfers on Growth: Panel Data Investigation for Developing Countries

The study investigates the causal impact of trade openness and technology transfers on productivity growth in developing countries. We introduce the concept of technologically intensive trade openness (TITO) that can be measured by country approach as imports from highly innovative countries to GDP (employed in the study) or product approach as imports of highly technological products to GDP. We use panel data methods with fixed effects in combination with instrumental variable analysis. We find the time-varying instruments for TITO, among others: one-year lagged industry value added in highly innovative countries weighted by bilateral import shares of a developing country with each innovative country. Our results report that the technologically intensive imports and R&D spillovers from highly innovative countries stay the major channel of international technology diffusion affecting productivity growth in developing countries. On the contrary technologically non-intensive imports (imports from the less innovative countries) tend to have petty or even negative effect on productivity growth. The findings are consistent with the new growth theory and some recent empirical studies. Also educational attainment, domestic R&D activity, use of foreign intellectual property rights and less evidently institutional improvement can positively and substantially increase TFP in a developing country. We also find the interactions between TITO and educational attainments as well as TITO and use of foreign intellectual property rights.

Trade-related influences, foreign intellectual property rights and outbound international patenting

This paper provides an empirical investigation of the national determinants of outbound international patenting, particularly focusing on the roles of trade-related influences and the destination countries’ strength of intellectual property protection. Based on cross-patenting from 30 member countries in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) between 1995 and 1998, empirical results suggest that the behavior of outbound international patenting is strongly and positively associated with trade-related influences, like exports and outward foreign direct investments. Moreover, controlling for other variables, a country with stronger protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) tends to force more foreign inventors to file for patent applications, lending a supportive view of cross-country evidence for the strong-IPR hypothesis.

Effects of Foreign Intellectual Property Rights on U.S. Bilateral Exports of Biotechnology‐Related Agricultural Inputs

This paper examines the effect of foreign intellectual property right (IPR) systems and the policies that comprise them on U.S. exports of biotechnology related agricultural input industries. Policy components include the extent of patent coverage across industry sectors, enforcement mechanisms, provisions for loss of patent protection, memberships to other international patent agreements, and duration of patent protection. Extending the empirical and theoretical work of Smith (2002), this paper uses a gravity model to analyze how IPRs affect the market power and market expansion effects of exports to countries with differing abilities to imitate technology. The findings suggest that strengthening global IPRs grant a market power effect to U.S. exporters; strong IPRs reduce U.S. exports by awarding a temporary monopoly over the protected good. However, the analysis of the individual policy components of an IPR system reveal which components inhibit trade through market power effects and which components counterbalance it through market expansion effects, increasing the flow of trade and access to biotechnology related agricultural inputs. Copyright 2003 by Suzanne L. W. Wisniewski. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

The Justiciability of Foreign Copyright Claims

When can English defendants be sued in England for the infringement of a foreign copyright? They were once immune, for two distinct reasons. English law formerly governed liability even for foreign torts, the effect of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 1. Such claims were therefore pointless because English copyright protection extends only to English infringements; English law, although in principle applicable, could not be applied. Less convincingly, foreign intellectual property rights, like rights in foreign land, were generally regarded as non-justiciable under the rule in British South Africa Co. v. Cia. de Moçambique [1893] A.C. 602.