Abstract
Intellectual property (IP) is important for the future of developing countries, but the implementation of IP systems in developing countries has been ungainly and, in many cases, ineffective. Some might go so far as to say that IP proponents who have attempted to uncritically push IP systems onto developing countries, without taking into account all the relevant considerations, have created an unworkable situation that does not benefit those countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Eleanor Roosevelt, My Day (6 February 1947) The George Washington University <http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/myday/displaydoc.cfm?_y=1947&_f=md000567>.
- 2.
David A. Clark, Visions of Development-A Study of Human Values (Edward Elgar 2002) 20, citing World Bank (1991).
- 3.
Digital Opportunity Task Force, Digital Opportunities for All: Meeting the Challenge (11 May 2001) International Telecommunication Union (ITU) <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/background/general/reports/26092001_dotforce.htm>.
- 4.
Madhavi Sunder, ‘Intellectual Property and Development As Freedom’ in Neil Weinstock Netanel (ed), The Development Agenda—Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries (Oxford, 2009) 453, 470.
- 5.
Valentina Vadi, ‘Sapere Aude! Access to Knowledge as A Human Right and a Key Instrument of Development’ (2008) 12 International Journal of Communication Law and Policy 345, 353.
- 6.
Ibid.
- 7.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development on 4 December 1986. The preamble recognised that:
[D]evelopment is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting there from’ Art 2(1) of the declaration also provides that: ‘the human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development.
See United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), Declaration on the Right to Development, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/74.htm>; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Measuring Human Development: A Primer-Guidelines and tools for Statistical Research, Analysis and Advocacy (2 September 2007) <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/Primer_complete.pdf>.
- 8.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the eight goals set by the UN to be reached in 2015. These include the following: 1. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2. achieve universal primary education; 3. promote gender quality and empower women; 4. reduce the mortality of children; 5. improve maternal health; 6. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; 7. ensure environment sustainability; and 8. develop a global partnership for development. See Interchurch Organisation for Development Cooperation (ICCO), The Millennium Development Goals <http://www.icco.nl/en/projects/millennium-goals>; Rohan Kariyawasam, International Economic Law and the Digital Divide (Edward Elgar, 2007) 278.
- 9.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), São Paulo Consensus (25 June 2004) <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/td410_en.pdf>.
- 10.
United Nations (UN), Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002) <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf>.
- 11.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Declaration of Principles of the World Summit of Information Society (10-12 December 2003, Geneva) <http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1161|1160>.
- 12.
The Group of 77, Doha Declaration <http://www.g77.org/southsummit2/doc/Doha%20Declaration(English).pdf>.
- 13.
United Nations (UN), Programme for Action for Least Developing Countries for the Decade 2000-2010 Implementation <http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/Contributions/Matrix%202005-P2.pdf>.
- 14.
United Nations (UN), Monterrey Consensus <http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf>.
- 15.
European Commission (EC), Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2004/april/tradoc_116827.pdf>.
- 16.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), The Role of Intellectual Property in Development and WIPO’s Development Cooperation Program, ch 3, 195 <http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch3.pdf>.
- 17.
Vadi, above n 5,353.
- 18.
Sisule F Musungu, Rethinking Innovation, Development and Intellectual Property in the UN: WIPO and Beyond TRIPS, Quaker International Affairs Programme, Issue Paper 5, (2005), The Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO), 11 <http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/economic/Issues/TRIPS53.pdf>.
- 19.
Wikipedia, Development Studies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_studies>.
- 20.
Ibid.
- 21.
See for explanation of some of those terms, Kariyawasam, above n 8, 266-267. See also the fallowing approaches or (paradigms) to development: the classic; the neo-liberal; and the neo-populist paradigms. See Piers Blaikie et al., ‘Knowledge in Action: Local Knowledge as a Development Resources and Barriers to its Incorporation in Natural Resource Research and Development’, (1997) 55 (2) Agricultural Systems 217-237.
- 22.
Center to Bridge the Digital Divide (CBDD), The Meaning of Development, Sustainable Development and Rural Development, 59 <http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/cdoutput/TR501/page59.htm> (on file with author). See also Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalisation Work (W.W. Norton & Co., 2006) 48-49.
- 23.
CBDD, above n 22.
- 24.
Kariyawasam, above n 8, 283; 291, citing Consideration of the Sixth Report of the Independent Expert on the Right of Development, EN/CN4/2004/ WG181 (2 February 2004), 4.
- 25.
Marie-Claire Segger, ‘The Role of International Forums in the Advancement of Sustainable Development’ (Fall 2009) Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 4 <http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/documents/SDLP_09Fall.pdf?rd=1>. See also Markus Gehring and Marie-Claire Segger, Sustainable Development in World Trade Law (Kluwer, 1992) 3; Subrata R Chowdhury, Erik M.G. Denters and Paul J.I.M. de Waart (eds), The Right to Development in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1992).
- 26.
The DRTD is controversial and some countries, including the US, question whether it is legally binding. The DRTD has been subject to many interpretations. One commentator notes that: it ‘is not legally binding under international law and that states other than parties to the Africa Charter to Human and People’s Right cannot be held legally accountable for its implementation. This is not to deny the moral or political force’. See Laure-Hélène Piron, The Right to Development, A Review of the Current State of the Debate for the Department for International Development (April 2002) Overseas Development Institute (ODI) <http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/1562.pdf>.
- 27.
Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development (UNRD) (adopted by the General Assembly in 1986). See also Darell A. Posey and Graham Dutfield, Indigenous Peoples and Sustainability - Cases and Actions (IUCN Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Initiative, International Books,1997) 83.
- 28.
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford University,1999) 35. See also Julio Faundez, ‘Rule of Law or Washington Consensus: the Evaluation of the World Bank’s Approach to Legal and Judicial Reform’ in Amanda Perry Kessaris (ed), Law in the Pursuit of Development Principle into Practice? (Routledge, 2010) 245; Faizel Ismail, ‘A Development Perspective on the WTO July 2004 General Council Decision’ (2005) 8 Journal of international Economic Law 377; Gehring and Segger, above n 25, 4; Kariyawasam, above n 8, 266; 267; Sunder, above n 4, 453.
- 29.
Sen, above n 28, 38.
- 30.
Margaret Chon, ‘Intellectual Property from Below: Copyright and Capability for Education’ (2007) 40 University California Davis Law Review, 803818, citing Martha C. Nussbaum, ‘Capabilities and Human Rights’ (1997) 66 Fordham Law Review 273, 287.
- 31.
Ibid.
- 32.
Clark, above n 2, 20.
- 33.
The United Nations (UN), Report of the World Summit noted:
We gather here to commit ourselves, our Governments and our nations to enhancing social development through the world so that all men and women, especially those living in poverty, may exercise the rights, utilize the resources and share the responsibilities that enable them to lead satisfying lives and to contribute to the well-being of their families, their communities and human kind. To support and promote these efforts must be the overriding goals of the international community, especially with respect to people suffering from poverty, unemployment and social exclusion.
See United Nations (UN), Report of the World Summit for Social Development (1995), 3 <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf166/aconf166-9.htmat1stOctober2010>.
See also, Kumiko Sakamoto, Social Development, Culture and Participation (PhD thesis, Waseda University, 2002) <http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/socialdevelopment.pdf>.
- 34.
It can also be defined as ‘increasing the awareness of citizens to lead better life that would help them to harness their social energies and skills’. See also Clark, above n 2, 23.
- 35.
Manohar S. Pawar and David R. Cox, Social Development—Critical Themes and Perspectives (Rutledge, 2010) 16, citing Hollister (1982) and Midgley (1993) 7.
- 36.
Ibid 16, citing Mohan and Sharma (1985) 12-23.
- 37.
Ibid 16, citing Meinert and Kho (1984) 10. See also Clark, above n 2, 20.
- 38.
Clark, above 2, 10.
- 39.
Gerald M. Meier and James E. Rauch (eds), Leading Issues in Economic Development (Oxford University, 6th ed 1995) 7. See also Stiglitz, above 22, 44-48.
- 40.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action (25 June 1993), United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) <http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(symbol)/a.conf.157.23.en>. See also Kariyawasam, above n 8, 287.
- 41.
James M. Cypher and James L. Dietz, The Process of Economic Development (Rotledge, 3rd ed 2009) 30. See also Clibert Rist, The History of Development (Academic Foundation, 2nd ed, 2002); Gerald M. Mier and Joseph E. Stiglitz (eds), Frontiers of Development Economics (Oxford University, 2001); George Mavrotas and Anthony Shorrocks, Advancing Development—Global Themes in Global Economics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
- 42.
WA. Alan Strong and Lesley A. Hemphill, Sustainable Development Policy Directory (Blackwell Publishing, 2006) 1. See also Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger and Ashfaq Khalfan, Sustainable Development Law: Principles, Practices and Prospects (Oxford, 2005) 15-43.
- 43.
United Nations (UN), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, ch 7 <http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm>.
- 44.
Gehring and Segger, above n 25, 5. See also Strong and Lesley, above n 42, 1-3; Clark, above n 2, 19; Segger and Khalfan, above n 42, 1-5; Philippe Cullet, Intellectual Property Protection and Sustainable Development (Lexis-Nexis, 2005) 34-38; 43; Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, ‘Who Sustains Development? Sustainable Development and the Reinvention of Nature’ (2003) 24 (1) Organization 143-180 < http://oss.sagepub.com/content/24/1/143.abstract >.
- 45.
Posey and Dutfield, above n 27, 33.
- 46.
Professor Ruth L. Gana (Okediji) notes:
[T]he promise of development, for the most part, continues to form the basis of modern arguments insisting on particular forms and levels of intellectual property protection in developing countries. The lure of membership to international treaties was often made more appealing by the work of international institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and UNESCO, which espoused the conventional wisdom of western intellectual property scholars that enactment of European-style intellectual property laws is necessary perquisite to economic progress and development.
See Ruth L. Gana (Okediji), ‘The Myth of Development, the Progress of Rights: Human Rights to Intellectual Property and Development’ (1996) 18 Law and Policy Law Journal 315, 331.
- 47.
There are four primary theories that justify IP. The utilitarian, labour, personality and social planning theories. The traditional justification for IP protection is that it promotes science and technology, and without its protection creators would not have any incentive to produce to the society valuable ‘public goods’. See for a full explanation of those theories of IP, William Fisher, ‘Theories of Intellectual Property’ in Sephen Munzer (ed), New Essays in Legal and Policitcal Theory of Property, 168-199 (Cambridge University, 2001) Berkman Center for Internet and Society < http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf>; Keith E. Maskus, Intellectual Property and Economic Development, a paper prepared for the series ‘Beyond the Treaties: A Symposium on Compliance with International Intellectual Property Law’, organized by Fredrick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University (6 February 2000) <http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/mcguire/workingpapers/cwrurev.doc>; Joseph Stiglitz, Public Policy for a Knowledge Economy (27 Janyary 1999) akgul.bilkent.edu.tr <http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/BT-BE/knowledge-economy.pdf>; Anselm Kamperman Sanders, ‘Intellectual Property, Free Trade Agreements and Economic Development’ (2007) 23 Georgia State University Law Review 893; Carlos M. Correa, Bilateral Investment Agreements: Agents of New Global Standards for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights? (August 2004) International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) <http://ictsd.net/i/ip/18366/>; Otunba Yinka Lawal-Solarin, ‘Copyright and Education—A Publishers Perspective From A Developing World’ (a paper presented at the Information meeting on Education and Copyright in the Digital Age, November 2005, at the Headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva, Switzerland)<http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/educ_cr_im_05/educ_cr_im_05_www_53637.pdf>; Craig Joyce 2, ‘Articles in Honour of Professor L. Ray Patterson’ (2003) 10 Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 239.
- 48.
George Town University.
- 49.
Julie Cohen, ‘Creativity and Culture in Copyright Theory’ (2007) 40 University California Davis Law 1151, 1159 <http://law.indiana.edu/students/centers/doc/Cohen2_000.pdf>. See also, Margret Chon, ‘Copyright and Capability for Education: An Approach from Below’ in Tzen Wong and Graham Dutfield, Intellectual Property and Human Development (Cambridge, 2011) 218.
- 50.
University of Seattle.
- 51.
See Margaret Chon, ‘Intellectual Property and the Development Divide’ (2006) 27 Codozo Law Review 2813, 2821; 2877 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=894162>.
- 52.
University of California.
- 53.
Madhavi Sunder, ‘Cultural Dissent’ (2001) 54 Stanford Law Review, 495 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=304619>.
- 54.
See Madhavi Sunder, ‘IP3’ (2006) 59 (2) Stanford Law Review 257, 323; Sunder, above n 4, 453.
- 55.
Sunder, above n 54, 323.
- 56.
Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (DCE), open for signature on 20 October 2005, 2440 UNTS 311 (entered into force on 18 March 2007) <http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>. See also Wong and Dutfield, above n 49.
- 57.
See Publishers Association of South Africa, PICC Report on Intellectual Property Rights in South Africa (September 2004), 92 <http://www.publishsa.co.za/downloads/intellectual_property_report.pdf>. See also John Barton et al, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR), Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy (2002), <http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf>; James Boyle, ‘A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property’ (2004) 9 Duke Law and Technology Review 10 <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=dltr>; Lihong Li, ‘Localizing WIPO’s Legislative Assistance: Lessons from China’s Experience with the TRIPs Agreement’ in Jeremy de Beer, Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda (Wifrid Laurier, 2009) 123; 125.
- 58.
Publishers Association of South Africa, above n 57.
- 59.
The commons was traditionally defined as existing in forests, the atmosphere, fisheries and grazing lands, that were shared amongst all and no one owns. The same concept has been used to describe information accessible through the Internet. See James Arvanitakis, Explaining the Common (2010) <http://jamesarvanitakis.net/?page_id=247>.
- 60.
Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder, The Romance of the Public Domain (2004) 92 California Law Review, 1331, 1374 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=562301>.
- 61.
Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks (Yale University, 2006) 320.
- 62.
Brian Fitzgerald and Rami Olwan, ‘The Legality of Free and Open Source Software Licences: the Case of Jacobsen v. Katzer’ in Mark Perry and Brian Fitzgerald (eds), Knowledge Policy for the 21st Century (Irwin Law, 2011); Brian Fitzgerald and Rami Olwan, ‘Copyright Law in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the Digital Age (2010) 32 (11) European Intellectual Property Law Review, 565.
- 63.
‘From the ‘digital divide’, to biotechnology, to medical research, open source and open access have become key components in the strategy to boost the fortunes of developing countries.’ See David W. Opderbeck, ‘The Penguin’s Paradox: The Political Economy of International Intellectual Property and the Paradox of Open Intellectual Property Models’ (2007) 18 Stanford Law and Policy Review 102; Jennifer Papin-Ramcharan and Frank Soodeen, ‘Open Source Software: A Developing Country View’ in Kirk St. Amant and Brian Still (ed), Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives (Information Science Reference, 2007) 93-101; Alfreda Dudley-Sponaugle, Sungchul Hong and Yuanqiong Wang, ‘The Social and Economic Impact of FOSS in Developing Countries’ in Kirk Amant and Brian Still (ed), Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives (Information Science Reference, 2007) 102-115; Daniel F. Olejko, ‘Charming a Snake: Open Source Strategies for Developing Countries Disillusioned with TRIPs’ (2007) 25 Penn State International Law Review, 855.
- 64.
Article 27(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that: ‘[e]veryone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author’. See also Art 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b1udhr.htm>; UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 17 (12 January 2006) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,CESCR,,,441543594,0.html>.
- 65.
Audrey R. Chapman, A Human Rights Perspective on Intellectual Property, Scientific Progress, and Access to the Benefits of Science, WIPO, 1, 38 <http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/paneldiscussion/papers/pdf/chapman.pdf>.
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
See Laurence R. Helfer, ‘Towards A Human Rights Approach Framework for Intellectual Property’ (2007) 40 University California Davis Law Review 971; Orit Fischman Afori, ‘Human Rights and Copyright: The Introduction of Natural Law Consideration to American Law’ (2004) 14 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 497; Vadi above n 5, 345, Paul L.C. Torremans (ed), Copyrights and Human Rights (Kluwer, 2004); Michael Kirby, ‘Forward’ in Brian Fitzgerald and Benedict Atkinson (ed), Copyright Future Copyright Freedom (Sydney, 2011) 2, 8; Paul Goldstein and P. Bernt Hugenholtz, International Copyright Principles, Law, and Practice (Oxford University, 2010) 23-26.
- 68.
Professor Ruth L. Gana (Okediji) notes:
What has become clear from the successful industrialization of countries in East Asia is that the process of development requires a careful mix of political reform, sound economic policies, and strategic exploitation of freely available technology, all of which must operates within a legitimate socio-cultural framework.
-
Ruth L. Gana (Okediji), ‘The Myth of Development, the Progress of Rights: Human Rights to Intellectual Property and Development’ (1996) 18 Law and Policy Journal 315, 331, 332. See also Ruth L. Gana (Okediji), ‘Has Creativity Died in the Third World? Some Implications of the Internationalisation Intellectual Property’ (1995) 24 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 109.
-
Professor Margaret Chon agrees that IP alone is not enough. She notes:
In the current rule-generating and rule-interpreting environment of intellectual property globalisation, the presumption has been that intellectual property is good because it promotes economic growth…Intellectual property can no longer afford to be insular, as if it does not affect or is not affected by the provision of other global public goods. Explicit connections must be made between intellectual property and other global public goods addressing basic development needs, including food, education as well as the already highly publicized health care sector.
Chon, above n 51, 2877.
-
Economist Keith Maskus also believes that many other ‘variables’ could affect the impact of IP protection. Such variable include macroeconomic stability, market openness, policies for improving an economy’s technological infrastructure and the acquisition of human capital. Maskus, above n 47, 1. See also Hirouki Odagiri et al (eds), Intellectual Property Rights, Development and Catch UP (Oxford, 2010) 420; 427.
-
- 69.
Kamil Idris, former Director General of WIPO noted that:
[A] national development strategy needs the strategic integration of intellectual property issues with other development policy issues, such as those in the economic, trade, financial, educational, social, cultural, environmental, and competition fields.
See Kamil Idris and Hisamitsu Arai, The Intellectual Property-Conscious Nation: Mapping the Path from Developing to Developed, WIPO Publication No. 988 (2006), 16. See also:
Denis Borges Barbosa, Margaret Chon and Andres Moncayo von Hase, ‘Slouching Towards Development in International Intellectual Property’ (2007) Michigan State Law Review, 71, 75 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081366>.
- 70.
University of Minnesota.
- 71.
Ruth Gana Okediji, ‘Copyright and Public Welfare in Global Perspective’ (1999-2000) 7 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 122.
- 72.
Sisule F Musungu notes that:
The principle of minimum intellectual property standards backed by trade retaliation; the loss of balance in intellectual property policy and rules; the incumbency problem; lack of economic analysis: fighting rather than embracing new technologies such as the internet; undemocratic and ideological international standard-setting processes; inconsistency and lack of coordination within and among developing countries; and glossing over historical evidence and lessons.
See Musungu, above n 18, 2; Ruth Okediji, ‘Back to Bilateralism? Pendulum Swings in International Intellectual Property Protection’ (2003) 1 University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal 125 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=764725; Bilaterals.org, Fighting FTAs an International Strategy Workshop (July 2006) <http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/Fighting-FTAs-summary-report.pdf>.
- 73.
See Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Property (Cambridge University, 2008) <http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm>; Brian Martin ‘Against Intellectual Property, (1995) 21 Philosophy and Social Action, 7-22.
- 74.
ICTSD and UNCTAD, Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for Development, Policy Discussion Paper—UNCTAD—ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development (August 2003) <http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/Policy%20Discussion%20Paper/PP_Introduction.pdf>.
Professor Alan Story has commented also that:
Much less has been written about how the transplantation of what we might call a mature Western-style copyright regime and its infrastructure would generate significant economic growth in the South. Moreover, most of what has been written is neither convincing nor comprehensive and, to understate the point, contains gaping analytic holes.
Alan Story, ‘Burn Berne: Why the Leading International Copyright Convention Must be Repealed’ (2003) 40 3 Houston Law Review 763, 774. See also Ruth L. Okediji, ‘Development in the Information Age’, Issue Paper No. 9—UNCTAD—ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development (May 2004), 6 <http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/CS_Okediji.pdf>. See for a recent book that attempts to provide empirical evidence, Odagiri et al, above n 68.
- 75.
See ch 2 for a full explanation of the WIPO Development Agenda.
- 76.
WIPO, above n 16.
- 77.
See Lawrence Liang, Guide to Open Content Licenses, Piet Zwart Institute (2004) <http://www.theartgalleryofknoxville.com/ocl_v1.2.pdf>.
- 78.
Katie Lula, ‘Neither Here Nor There But Fair: Finding an International Copyright Legal system Between East and West’ (2003) 8 Asian Pacific Law and Policy Journal 18-19, citing WIPO Massage; Philip G. Altbach (ed), Copyright and Development: Inequality in the Information Age (Bellagio, 1995) 1-11.
- 79.
See Eben Moglen, ‘Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright’ in Niva Elkin- Koren and Neil Weinstock Netanel (eds), The Commodification of Information (Kluwer International, 2002) 107; P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Code as the Law or the End of Intellectual Property as we Know it, University of Amsterdam, Institute for Information Law <http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/maastricht.doc>.
- 80.
Grain, Freedom from IPR: A Convergence of Movements (28 October 2004), 1 <http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=301>; Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture (Penguin, 2004); William Fisher, Promises to Keep Technology, Law, and the Future of Entertainment (Stanford University, 2004); Peter Biddle et al, The Darkest and the Future of Content Distributions (18 November 2002) Bearcave <http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htm>; Koren and Netanel above n 79, 79-106; Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Kluwer Law International, 2001) 179; Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, From Shakespeare to Dj danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age (2006) SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=909223>; Pamela Samuelson, Preliminary Thoughts in Copyright Reform (2007) SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1002676>; Musungu above n 18, 11; Ahmed Abdel Latif, ‘A Perspective on Reform in Arab Countries’ in Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz and Pedro Roffe (ed), Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Development Agenda in a Changing World (Edward Elgar, 2010) 51, 59; James Bessen and Eric Maskin, Intellectual Property on the Internet: What's Wrong with Conventional Wisdom? (2004) Research on Innovation <http://www.researchoninnovation.org/iippap2.pdf>. See also Contra R. Polk Wagner ‘Information Wants to be Free: Intellectual Property and the Methodologies of Control’ (2003) 103 Columbia Law Review 995.
- 81.
Claudia Schmid, Is Copyright Protection Necessary to Promote Innovation? An Evolutionary Economics Approach, International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), 12 <http://www.atrip.org/Content/Essays/Claudia%20Schmid.pdf>.
- 82.
Bessen and Maskin, above n 80.
- 83.
Stiglitz, above n 47.
- 84.
John Barton et al, above n 57, 101.
- 85.
Sunder, above n 54, 260.
The Commission of Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) noted that:
Indeed, it is arguably the case that many poor people in developing countries have only been able to access certain copyrighted works through using unauthorized copies available at a fraction of the price of the genuine original product. We are therefore concerned that an unintended impact of stronger protection and enforcement of international copyright rules as required, inter alia, by TRIPS will be simply to reduce access to knowledge products in developing countries, with damaging consequences for poor people.
John Barton et al, above n 57, ch 5. See also Bessen and Maskin, above n 80.
- 86.
The Gower Review of Intellectual Property (November 2006) UK Home Treasury <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf>.
- 87.
Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:
-
(1)
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
-
(2)
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
-
(3)
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly, GA Res 217A (1948), UN Online <http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html>.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the World Bank note that:
Knowledge is like light. Weightless and intangible, it can easily travel the world, enlightening the lives of people everywhere. Yet billions of people still live in the darkness of poverty unnecessarily.’ ‘Without having proper education, developing countries will inevitably fall behind developed countries and experience intellectual and economic marginalization and isolation. The result will be continued, if not rising, poverty.
IBRD and the World Bank, Higher Education in Developing Countries Peril and Promise (February 2000) The Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 223 <http://www.tfhe.net/report/downloads/report/whole.pdf>. See also Andrew Rens, Implementing the WIPO Development Agenda - Treaty Provisions on Minimum Exceptions and Limitations for Education, Shuttleworth Foundation Working Paper on Intellectual Property (2008) International Development Research Center <http://web.idrc.ca/openebooks/454-3/#page_158>; Ruth L Okediji, The International Copyright System: Limitations, Exceptions and Public Interest Considerations for Developing Countries, Issue Paper No. 15—UNCTAD—ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development (2006), 32 <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc200610_en.pdf>; Chon, above n 49, 218.
-
(1)
- 88.
Okediji, above n 87.
- 89.
Chon, above n 51, 2855; IBRD and the World Bank, above n 87, 223.
- 90.
Lauren Loew, ‘Creative Industries in Developing Countries and Intellectual Property Protection’, (2006) 9 1 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Tech, 171, 176 <law.vanderbilt.edu/publications/journal-entertainment-technology law/archive/download.aspx?id=1692>.
- 91.
Okediji, above n 74, 37. See also Chon, above 49.
- 92.
Okediji above n 74, 38; Dalindyebo Shabalala, Towards A Digital Agenda for Developing Countries, Research Papers 13 (August 2007) South Center, 21 <http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=1>.
- 93.
Consumers International, Copyright and Access to Knowledge, Policy Recommendations on Flexibilities in Copyright Laws (2006) Soros Foundation <http://www.soros.org/initiatives/information/focus/access/articles_publications/publications/copyright_20060602>.
- 94.
Jeremy Malcolm, ‘Intellectual Property as a Consumer Issue and Global Consumer Dialogue on A2K issues’(Presentation at the A2K Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17 February 2009).
- 95.
See Lea Shaver (ed), Access to Knowledge in Brazil (Bloomsbury, 2010); Jack M. Balkin, ‘What is Access to Knowledge?’ (21 April 2006) <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-is-access-to-knowledge.html>.
- 96.
United Nations (UN), Creative Economy Report (2008) UNCTAD <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditc20082cer_en.pdf>. Michael Kelly notes that ‘Creativity and its cognates mean that ability to produce something original (in the sense of new rather than authentic) in the arts, in the sciences and other endeavour’. See Michael Kelly, Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics (Oxford University, 1998) 453, 456.
- 97.
It is also important to examine how IP laws can boost innovation in developing and emerging economies. See Luisa Massarani, Brazil’s Innovation Law: Lessons for Latin America (3 August 2006) SciDev.net <http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/brazils-innovation-law-lessons-for-latin-america.html>.
- 98.
Ibid. John Howkins notes that:‘[c]reativity has a profound effect on society, and is considered as a ‘critical component of success in the global knowledge-based economy… [it] is the origin of human and economic growth and of socio- cultural political development’. See also John Howkins, Who Owns the Law? A New Approach to Intellectual Property, based on a submission to the Gowers Review, UK, TM Treasury <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/john_howkins_230_33kb.pdf>; UNCTAD, World Investment Report Foreign Direct Investment and the Challenge of Development (1999) <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir1999_en.pdf>.
- 99.
WIPO noted that:
Copyright provides protection to original works of authorship, such as paintings, sculpture, music, novels, poems, plays, architecture, dance, instruction manuals, technical documentation and software. Copyright laws give statutory expression to the economic and moral rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in the access to those creations. They also aim to promote, as a deliberate act of government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and encourage fair-trading as a means by which to contribute to economic and social development.
See WIPO, Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues (December 2002) <http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/ecommerce/pdf/survey.pdf>; UN, above n 96, 144.
- 100.
Liang, above n 77.
- 101.
Professor Cohen argues that:
Put differently, if copyright is not the most important factor in stimulating creativity; it still may be the most important factor within our control. If copyright serves other important functions, such as the organization of private cultural production and the distribution of artistic and intellectual goods, perhaps strong copyright is good policy. Here the decentred model of creativity makes its second contribution: it provides a firmer foundation for arguments about the systemic harms that a regime of copyright can produce. Critics of copyright maximalism have long argued that overly rigid control of access to and manipulation of cultural goods stifles artistic and cultural innovation, and a growing body of anecdotal evidence suggests that copyright’s ‘permission culture’ does exert a substantial constraining influence on creative practice … . Copyright fulfils some important economic functions (of which more shortly), and therefore plays an important role in organizing cultural production, but it is hardly ever the direct cause of a representational shift in creative practice, nor does it appear to play a direct role in motivating much that is normal science. Scholars who ask how deploying copyright might stimulate creativity (as opposed to production) are asking the wrong question. Neither creative inspiration nor the creative outputs that follow from it are so easily engineered. Questions remain, however, about the extent to which the contextual factors that are more important in stimulating creativity are amenable to social engineering.
Cohen, above n 49, 1193; Dennis S. Karjala, Creativity and Copyright (February 2008) <http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=dennis_karjala>.
- 102.
Cohen, above n 49, 101.
- 103.
Brian Fitzgerald et al, Internet and E-Commerce Law (Thomson, Sydney, 2007) 154.
- 104.
See Tana Pistorius, ‘Developing Countries and Copyright in the Information Age—The Functional Equivalent Implementation of the WCT’ (2006) 9 (2) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad < http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2006/11.html >, citing, Armstrong and Ford (2005); United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Information Report (1997/98) <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001062/106215e.pdf>.
- 105.
Professor Neil Netanel notes that ‘copyright should also encourage creative expression on a wide array of political, social and aesthetic issues as a vital component of a democratic civil society’. See Neil W Netanel ‘Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society’ (1996) 106 Yale School Law Journal 283.
See also Eddan Katz, Rudy Kleysteuber and Christen Linke Young, Common Knowledge - How Access to Information and Ideas Can Drive Development (2011) Panos London <http://panos.org.uk/wp-content/files/2011/03/common_knowledgeeI172y.pdf>. Altbach, above n 78; Okediji, above n 87.
- 106.
YouTube <http://www.youtube.com>.
- 107.
MySpace <http://www.myspace.com>.
- 108.
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com>.
- 109.
Flickr <http://www.flickr.com>.
- 110.
Twitter <http://www.twitter.com>.
- 111.
Wikipedia <http://www.wikipedia.org>.
- 112.
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Internet for the Arab World (2000) <http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/papers/egypt2000/15-e.pdf>.
- 113.
Fitzgerald, above n 103,154.
- 114.
Pistorius, above n 104.
- 115.
Okediji, above n 71,181.
- 116.
Shabalala, above 92, 6-15.
- 117.
Okediji, above 74, 12-16 and 32.
- 118.
Professor James Boyle was optimistic about the Internet revolution. He notes:
The Internet offers us remarkable opportunities to achieve the real goals that intellectual property policy ought to serve: encouraging innovation and facilitating the dissemination of cultural and educational materials.
Boyle, above 57.
- 119.
Benkler, above 61, 354.
- 120.
Ibid.
- 121.
Ibid.
- 122.
Many scholars are hoping that the technological revolution would fuel a social one, ushering in a ‘semiotic democracy’ in which everyone would have the power to create and disseminate cultural knowledge. See Sunder, above 54, 279.
- 123.
Okediji, above 74,11.
- 124.
For an explanation of the ‘remix culture’, see Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Bloomsbury, 2008).
- 125.
Yuko Nouguchi, ‘Toward a Better—Balance Copyright Regulations in the Digital and Network Era - Law, Technology, and the Market in the US and Japan’ (unpublished SJD Thesis, Stanford University, 2006) 32.
- 126.
Sunder, above 54, 276.
- 127.
Okediji, above 74, 32.
- 128.
Kariyawasam, above n 8, 253.
- 129.
Wong and Dutfield, above 49, xvil.
- 130.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Developed, Developing Countries (4 January 2006) <http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6326>; World Trade Organization (WTO), Who are the Developing Countries in the WTO? <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm>
- 131.
By Tina Aridas and Alessandro Magno, Countries Classified by Income Group, Global Finance <http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10298-countries-by-income-group.html#axzz1IitlGIPQ>.
- 132.
International Monetary Fund (IMF), WEO Groups and Aggregates Information (1 April 2010) <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/groups.htm#oem>.
- 133.
See also United Nations Statistics Division (UNSTATS), Composition of Macro Geographical (continental) Regions, Geographical Sub-Regions, and Selected Economic and other Groupings (17 February 2011) <http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm>.
- 134.
That is ‘the dollar value of a country’s final income in a year divided buy its population’. See Aridas and Magno, above n 131.
- 135.
World Bank, How We Classify Countries <http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications>.
- 136.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Trade and Development Report 2011 <http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdr2011_en.pdf>.
- 137.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has three members not considered as developed countries, but emerging economies and these are: Mexico, Turkey and the Russian Federation. See OECD, Members and Partners <http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36761800_1_1_1_1_1,00.html>.
- 138.
See Henrik Horn and Petros C. Mavroidis, Remedies in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and Developing Countries Interests (20 March 1999) Henrik Horn <http://www.econ-law.se/Papers/Remedies%20990611-1.pdf>.
- 139.
See Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS) <http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/59/>.
- 140.
Ibid.
- 141.
Ibid.
- 142.
See Yong-Shik Lee, ‘Theoretical Basis and Regulatory Framework for Microtrade: Combining Volunteerism with International Trade towards Poverty Elimination’, (2009) 2 (1) Law and Development Review 367-399 <http://www.lawanddevelopment.net/yslee_microtrade_october2010.pdf>.
- 143.
See UN-OHRLLS, LDCs <http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/62/>. See also One World Nations Online, Countries of the Third World <http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm>.
- 144.
John F. Robinson and Gary D. Mizel, The New Global Economy (Opportunities for M/WBEs In Emerging Markets Worldwide) (5 Janyary 2010) The National Minority Business Council <http://nmbcblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/the-new-global-economy-opportunities-for-mwbes-in-emerging-markets-worldwide/>, citing Chuan Li, What are Emerging Markets?
- 145.
Ibid.
- 146.
Ibid.
- 147.
Shamnad Basheer and Annalisa Primi, ‘The WIPO Development Agenda: Factoring in the ‘Technologically Proficient’, Developing Countries’ in Jeremy de Beer, Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda (Wifrid Laurier, 2009) 100, 102.
- 148.
Ibid.
- 149.
See UNSTATS, above n 133.
- 150.
See UN-OHRLLS, above n 139.
- 151.
Boyle, above n 57.
- 152.
Sunder, above 54, 314.
- 153.
Wong and Dutfield, above n 49, xvxvii.
- 154.
The potential for Internet usage could be limited by the digital divide and this need to be addressed. Developing countries have to: 1) raise the awareness of the general public and decision makers of the importance of the Internet for social and economic development; 2) formulate and develop policies related to Internet and its impact on citizens; 3) introduce new laws or amend old ones to guarantee the non interference with Internet usage of citizens for development purposes; and 4) support Internet usage and accessibility through public resources. See also Rami Olwan and Ghaith El Lawzi, ICT and Digital Divide in the Arab World, Olwan.com <http://www.olwan.com/newsDetails.asp?InfoID=947&CatID=&CatName=&PICNAME=Publications>.
- 155.
See generally the following research on IP and development:
Robert M. Sherwood, Intellectual Property and Economic Development (Westview, 1990); Philip G. Altbach (ed), Copyright and Development: Inequality in the Information Age (Bellagio, 1995); Yong Shik Lee, Reclaiming Development in the World Trading System (Cambridge, 2006); Keith Maskus, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (Institute for International Economics, 2000) <http://bookstore.piie.com/book-store//99.html>; Keith Maskus (ed), Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade (Elsevier, 2008); Jeremy de Beer, Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda (Wilfrid Laurier University, 2009); Carsten Fink and Keith Maskus (ed), Intellectual Property and Economic Development Lessons from the Recent Economic Research(The World Bank, 2005); Neil Weinstock Netanel (ed), The Development Agenda- Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries (Oxford, 2009); Tzen Wong and Graham Dutfield, Intellectual Property and Human Development (Cambridge, 2011); Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz and Pedro Roffe (ed), Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Development Agenda in a Changing World (Edward Elgar, 2010); Hirouki Odagiri et al (eds), Intellectual Property Rights, Development and Catch UP (Oxford, 2010); Nagla Rizk and Lea Shaver (ed), Access to Knowledge in Egypt (Bloomsbury, 2010); Lea Shaver (ed), Access to Knowledge in Brazil (Bloomsbury, 2010) <http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/ISP/A2KBrazil_bkmk.pdf>; Margaret Chon, ‘Intellectual Property and the Development Divide’ (2006) 27 Cardozo Law Review, 2821, <http://www.abifina.org.br/arquivos/encontros/Margaret_Chon.pdf>; Denis Borges Barbosa, Margaret Chon and Andres Moncayo von, ‘Slouching Towards Development in International Intellectual Property’ (2007) Michigan State Law Review, 71 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1081366>; Margaret Chon, Intellectual Property from Below: Copyright and Capability for Education, 818, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=971294>; Madhavi Sunder, ‘IP3’ (2006) 59 (2) Stanford Law Review <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897753>; Ruth L. Okediji, Development in the Information Age, Issue Paper No. 9 - UNCTAD – ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development (May 2004) <http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/CS_Okediji.pdf>; Ruth L Gana (Okediji), ‘The Myth of Development, the Progress of Rights: Human Rights to Intellectual Property and Development (1996) 18 Law and Policy Law Journal, 315; Ruth Gana Okediji, ‘Copyright and Public Welfare in Global Perspective’ (1999-2000) 7 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 117,181; Lea Shaver, ‘The Right to Science and Culture’ (2010) Wisconsin Law Review 121, 160 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354788>; Rosemary J Coombe, The Culture Life of Intellectual Properties (Duke University, 1998); Nicole Aylwin, Rosemary J. Coombe and Anita Chan, Intellectual Property, Cultural Heritage and Rights-Based Development: Geographical Indication as Vehicles for Sustainable Livelihoods, York University <http://www.yorku.ca>; Emmanuel Hassan, Ohid Yaqub and Stephanie Diepeveen, Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: A Review of the Literature, a technical report prepared to the UK Intellectual Property Office and the UK Department for International Development, (2010) RAND Corporation (Europe) <http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR804.pdf>; Jean Raymond Hormere, Intellectual Property Rights Can Help Stimulate the Economic Development of Least Developed Countries (2004) 27 (2) Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 277-299; Assafa Endeshaw, Intellectual Property in Asian Emerging Economies (Ashgate, 2010), ch 12; Bryan Mercurio,‘Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development’ in Law and Development Perspective on International Trade Law, edited by Y.S. Lee et al, (Cambridge University, 2011); Michael Blakeney and Getachew Mengistie, ‘Intellectual Property and Economic Development in Sub-Saharan Africa’ (2011) 14 Journal of World Intellectual Property 238; Jeremy de Beer and Chidi Oguamanam, Intellectual Property Training and Education, Issue Paper No. 31 - UNCTAD–ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development (November 2010) <http://ictsd.org/downloads/2010/11/iptrainingandeducation.pdf>; Matthews Duncan, Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Development The Role of NGOs and Social Movement (Edward Elgar, 2011); Ramesh Subramanian and Lea Shaver (eds), Access to Knowledge in India (Bloomsbury Academic, 2011); Hiroko Yamane, Interpreting TRIPS (Hart, 2011) ch 2; Chidi Oguamanam, Intellectual Property in Global Governance: A Development Question (Routlege, 2012); Jonathan D. Putnam and Andrew B. Tepperman, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Progress: A Review of the Literature’ in Robert E. Litan, Handbook on Law, Innovation and Growth (Edward Elgar, 2011), 113; Margaret Chon, ‘A Rough Guide to Global Intellectual Property Pluralism’ in Rochelle C. Dreyfuss et al (ed), Working with the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (Oxford, 2010) 446, 458-463; Ida Madieha Abdul Ghani Azmi, Lim Heng Gee and Rokiah Alavi, Intellectual Property System and Industrial Development in Malaysia (International Islamic University Malaysia, 2009).
- 156.
The World Bank lists 56 developing countries as lower middle income economies, 40 of those are classified as lower income economies and 48 are classified as upper middle income economies. See the World Bank, Country and Lending Groups <http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups>.
- 157.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Jordan Human Development Report Building a Sustainable Livelihood, (2004) <http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/arabstates/jordan/jordan_2004_en.pdf>.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Olwan, R.M. (2012). Intellectual Property and Development. In: Intellectual Property and Development. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27907-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27907-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27906-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27907-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)