Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:46:11.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Intellectual Property Arbitrage: How Foreign Rules Can Affect Domestic Protections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Pamela Samuelson
Affiliation:
Professor, University of California at Berkeley 102 South Hall Berkeley USA pam@law.berkeley.edu
Keith E. Maskus
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Jerome H. Reichman
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

ABSTRACT

Differences in national intellectual property rules may cause economic activity to shift from one jurisdiction to another, so that a higher-protection rule will be undermined by lower-protection rules of other jurisdictions. This chapter illustrates this phenomenon with four examples: different rules on the enforceability of anti-reverse engineering clauses of software licenses, on the protectability of bio-engineered research tools, on peer-to-peer file sharing, and on exceptions to anti-circumvention rules. It considers several options nations may have to respond to such intellectual property arbitrage, none of which is likely to be very effective.

Differences in national rules enable IP arbitrage

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), concluded in 1994, has narrowed the range of issues on which nations can adopt differing IP rules. All World Trade Organization (WTO) Members, for example, must now protect computer programs by copyright law. Yet, TRIPS plainly contemplates continued differences in national laws by signaling that nations are free to adopt higher-protection rules than the required minima (which presumably means they need not do so). Members are also “free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice.” TRIPS restricts national autonomy by forbidding nations from treating foreigners less well than their own nationals, but this implicitly “accepts the proposition that states may differ in their substantive laws.”

Type
Chapter

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×