Abstract
The contributions to this book show the strategies and policies of countries in the Asia-Pacific region that have to grapple with international standard setting in what has been called the ‘spaghetti bowl’ of criss-crossing free trade agreements. The chapters show how intellectual property is just one among many political and economic factors that are used in trade off discussions. It leads to an often considerable further raising of IP standards in those countries that agree to higher protection levels, often for reasons that have little to do with the provision of incentives for technological progress. A more nuanced picture of IP protection in Asia shows the different interests of high protection countries, ‘first’ and ‘second tier’ newly industrialized and industrializing countries and the rather peculiar position of Australia and New Zealand. The chapter introduces the contributions to this volume according to these various groups of countries and of international law and the political economy of the region.
C. Antons: Referendar jur. (Rhineland Palatinate), Assessor jur. (Bavaria), PhD in Law (University of Amsterdam); Chair in Law; Chief Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation; Affiliated Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich; Senior Fellow, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn.
R.M. Hilty: Professor Dr., Director. Full Professor ad personam at the University of Zurich. Honorary Professor at the University of Munich.
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.
The ‘Asia-Pacific’ region can be interpreted in many different ways, see Antons (2009a), pp. 5–7 and see the chapter by C. Antons and D. Thampapillai, this volume. It is used in this book as convenient shorthand for Asian countries (with a focus on East and Southeast Asia), the countries of Australasia (with a focus on Australia and New Zealand) and the United States across the Pacific.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Gadbaw and Richards (1988).
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
See the chapter by R.M. Hilty and T. Jaeger, this volume.
- 8.
Bhagwati (2008).
- 9.
See the chapter by R.M. Hilty and T. Jaeger, this volume.
- 10.
It is interesting to note in this context that the WTO, quite understandably in view of the difficulties and different terminologies, provides no definition of “developing country”, but accepts the self-description of member states. This is surprising in view of the legal consequences of “developing country” status and has led to affiliations of some countries that differ from the lists maintained by, for example, the OECD or the IMF, see WTO (2013) and Bosco (2011).
- 11.
See the chapter by C. Antons and D. Thampapillai, this volume.
- 12.
See the chapter by J. Ravenhill, this volume.
- 13.
Wassener (2013).
- 14.
Discussed in the chapter by P. Yu, this volume.
- 15.
Discussed in the chapter by T. Wattanapruttipaisan, this volume.
- 16.
As discussed in the chapter by S. Frankel and M. Richardson, this volume.
- 17.
The term ‘first-tier newly industrialized economies’ is used here for countries that are now commonly regarded as developed economies, but that have achieved this status in recent years.
- 18.
Frankel (2012), p. 169, refers to New Zealand, Singapore and even Australia as ‘small developed countries’.
- 19.
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Extension of the Transition Period Under Article 66.1 for Least Developed Country Members, Decision of the Council for TRIPS of 11 June 2013, WTO Doc. IP/IC/64 of 12 June 2013.
- 20.
See, for example, the TRIPS-plus provisions in the ASEAN–Australia New Zealand FTA discussed in the chapter by Lim Heng Gee, this volume.
- 21.
See Section IV ‘New Plant Variety’ of Law No. 01/NA of December 20, 2011 on Intellectual Property, available at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=310926. Accessed 26 February 2014.
- 22.
See Article 11 of AANZFTA, available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/aanzfta/chapters/chapter13.html. Accessed 24 January 2014.
- 23.
See the chapter by Lim Heng Gee, this volume.
- 24.
On the definition of ‘plurilateral’ as including like-minded national spanning several regions, see Bayne (2011).
- 25.
- 26.
Prestowitz (2013). See also the criticisms voiced by Malaysian NGOs, as discussed in the chapter by Lim Heng Gee, this volume.
- 27.
It is available at http://www.keepthewebopen.com/tpp. Accessed 17 October 2013.
- 28.
http://wilileaks.org/tpp/static/pdf/wikileaks-secret-TPP-treaty-IP-chapter.pdf. Accessed 24 January 2014.
- 29.
Frankel (2012).
- 30.
See the chapter by S. Frankel and M. Richardson, this volume.
- 31.
See the chapter by Lim Heng Gee, this volume. For Vietnam’s reasons to join the TPP negotiations, see Brown (2013).
- 32.
On this agreement and its role in bridging some of the other agreements and negotiations, see Wignaraja (2013).
- 33.
- 34.
Perlez and Cochrane (2013).
- 35.
See the chapter by Lim Heng Gee, this volume.
- 36.
For similar reasons regarding Vietnam’s joining of the TPP negotiations, see Brown (2013).
- 37.
For examples from garment and shoe manufacturing, see Brown (2013).
- 38.
See also Ravenhill (2006), p. 30, where he points to the refusal of the United States to conclude a bilateral agreement with New Zealand as a punishment for the country’s lack of cooperation in defence matters.
- 39.
On the ‘Bolar’ exception, named after the case of Roche Products Inc. vs. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co. (733 F. 2d. 858, Fed. Cir., cert. denied 469 US 856, 1984), see UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), pp. 431, 438, 443–445.
- 40.
See the contributions in Jomo (2003).
- 41.
Bunnell (2003).
- 42.
Smeltzer (2008).
- 43.
WIPO Publication 833(E) of 2000. http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/development_iplaw/pub833.htm. Accessed 17 October 2013.
- 44.
See Article 116 of the Japan–Indonesia Economic Partnership Agreement and the discussion in Kanniah and Antons (2012), pp. 12–23.
- 45.
Article 123.1 of the Malaysia–Japan Economic Partnership Agreement.
- 46.
In the Novartis decision, the Supreme Court of India denied patent protection for a cancer drug, relying on section 3(d) of the amended Indian Patents Act that excludes, among other things, a new form of a known substance from patentability, unless it results in ‘the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance’, see Gottipati (2013) and Harris (2013).
- 47.
Yu (2011).
References
Antons C (1991) Intellectual property law in ASEAN countries: a survey. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 13(3):78–84
Antons C (2003) Law and development in East and Southeast Asia. Routledge Curzon, London and New York
Antons C (2009a) Introduction. In: Antons C (ed) Traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and intellectual property law in the Asia-Pacific region. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 1–36
Antons C (2009b) Intellectual property: Southeast Asian law. The Oxford international encyclopedia of legal history, vol 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, pp 260–265
Antons C, Garcia G (2011) Initiatives on IP enforcement beyond TRIPS: the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement and the international medical products anti-counterfeiting task force. In: Antons C (ed) The enforcement of intellectual property rights: comparative perspectives from the Asia-Pacific region. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 125–159
Antons C, Gessner V (2007) Globalisation and resistance: law reform in Asia since the crisis. Hart, Oxford and Portland, Oregon
Bayne N (2011) Plurilateralism and multilateralism: comparing institutions. In: Bayne N, Woolcock S (eds) The new economic diplomacy: decision-making and negotiations in international economic relations. Ashgate, Farnham and Burlington, pp 205–229
Bhagwati J (2008) Termites in the trading system: how preferential agreements undermine free trade. Oxford University Press, New York
Bosco D (2011) Who’s a “developing country”? You’d be surprised. The Multilateralist, 18 February 2011. http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/16/whos_a_developing_country_youd_be_surprised
Brown D (2013) Vietnam’s need for the TPP. Asia Sentinel, 2 September 2013
Bunnell T (2003) Malaysia, modernity and the multimedia super corridor: a critical geography of intelligent landscapes. Routledge, London and New York
Callick R (2013) Asian ‘pivot’ losing its edge. The Australian, 8 October 2013
Correa CM (2007) Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights: a commentary on the TRIPS Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Drahos P (2001) BITs and BIPs: bilateralism in intellectual property. J World Intellect Prop 4(6):791–808
Frankel S (2012) The intellectual property chapter in the TPP. In: Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (eds) The trans-Pacific partnership: a quest for a twenty-first century trade agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 157–170
Gadbaw RM, Richards TJ (1988) Intellectual property rights – global consensus, global conflict? Westview, Boulder and London
Gervais D (2008) The TRIPS Agreement: drafting history and analysis. Sweet and Maxwell, London
Gillespie J, Peerenboom R (2009) Regulation in Asia: pushing back on globalization. Routledge, London and New York
Goldstein P, Straus J (2009) Intellectual property in Asia: law, economics, history and politics. Springer, Heidelberg
Gottipati S (2013) Health care advocates cheer Supreme Court decision. The New York Times, 1 April 2013
Harris G (2013) Patent’s defeat in India is key victory for generic drugs. The New York Times, 1 April 2013
Heath C (2003) Intellectual property law in Asia. Kluwer Law International, London
Jayasuriya K (1999) Law, capitalism and power in Asia: the rule of law and legal institutions. Routledge, London and New York
Jomo KS (2003) Southeast Asian paper tigers? From miracle to debacle and beyond. Routledge, London and New York
Kanniah R, Antons C (2012) Plant variety protection and traditional agricultural knowledge in Southeast Asia. Aust J Asian Law 13(1):1–23
Perlez J (2013) Cancellation of trip by Obama plays to doubts of Asian allies. The New York Times, 4 October 2013
Perlez J, Cochrane J (2013) Obama’s absence leaves China as dominant force at Asia-Pacific meeting. The New York Times, 7 October 2013
Pistor K, Wellons PA (1999) The role of law and legal institutions in Asian economic development 1960–1995. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York
Prestowitz C (2013) US Trade Representative, Inc. Asia Sentinel, 13 September 2013
Ravenhill J (2006) The political economy of the new Asia-Pacific bilateralism: benign, banal or simply bad? In: Aggarwal VK, Urata S (eds) Bilateral trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific: origins, evolution and implications. Routledge, New York and London, pp 27–49
Rose C (1998) The “new” law and development movement in the post-Cold War era: a Vietnam case study. Law Soc Rev 32:93–140
Sell S (2011) TRIPS was never enough: vertical forum shifting, FTAs, ACTA and TPP’. J Intellect Prop Law 18:447–478
Smeltzer S (2008) The message is the market: selling biotechnology and nation in Malaysia. In: Nevins J, Peluso NL (eds) Taking Southeast Asia to market: commodities, nature and people in the neoliberal age. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, pp 191–205
UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York
Wassener B (2013) Growth forecast is trimmed for developing nations in Asia. The New York Times, 1 October 2013
Wignaraja G (2013) Southeast Asia’s mega trade pact. Asia Sentinel, 17 May 2013
WIPO (2000) Joint recommendation concerning provision on the protection of well-known marks. Publication 833(E), Geneva. http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/development_iplaw/pub833.htm
WTO (2013) Development definition: who are the developing countries in the WTO? http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/d1who_e.htm. Accessed 10 Oct 2013
Yu P (2011) Six secret (and now open) fears of ACTA. Southern Methodist University Law Rev 64:975–1094
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Antons, C., Hilty, R.M. (2015). Introduction: IP and the Asia-Pacific ‘Spaghetti Bowl’ of Free Trade Agreements. In: Antons, C., Hilty, R. (eds) Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 24. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30888-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30888-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30887-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30888-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)