Abstract
As I have noted in the preceding chapters, countries in SSA and their citizens have been marginalized in both international and domestic patent polity, respectively. These marginalizations challenge the legitimacy of both the domestic and the international patent regulatory frameworks. They also produce juridical outcomes that fail to recognize different levels of development among nations/regions. In order to substantiate these claims, this chapter investigates the evolutionary trajectories of the concept of patents and tests whether the ‘participation’ of SSA countries in TRIPS negotiations met the basic conditions of the theory of democratic bargaining in global trade relations. Do the undemocratic outcomes, if any, affect the implementation of TRIPS in SSA 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.
- 2.
Footer (2003) at 125 [Footer, “Technical Assistance and Trade Law”].
- 3.
Vaver (2002) at 5.
- 4.
Mgbeoji (2006) at 16.
- 5.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 16.
- 6.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid.
- 7.
Hestermeyer (2007) at 22 [Hestermeyer, Human Rights and the WTO].
- 8.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 16.
- 9.
Penrose (1951) at 2.
- 10.
- 11.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 16.
- 12.
Penrose (1951), supra note 9 at 3.
- 13.
Amani (2009) at 41 [Amani, State Agency and the Patenting of Life].
- 14.
See The Clothesworkers of Ipswich Case, 78 ER 147; Statute of Monopolies, 1623.
- 15.
Baxter (1976) at 7.
- 16.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 122.
- 17.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 122.
- 18.
See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Financial Group, Inc, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed Cir, 1998) cf In Re Bernard L Bilski & Rand A Warsaw (2007-1130) (Serial No. 08/833,892) [as of writing in 2011, this case was on appeal at the US Supreme Court].
- 19.
See Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 58.
- 20.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 30.
- 21.
See Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, which provides that a patent shall confer on its owner the exclusive rights to use, make, import, or sell the patented products or processes.
- 22.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 29.
- 23.
See Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 24.
- 24.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 28.
- 25.
Botoy (2004) at 118.
- 26.
An Act Concerning Monopolies and Dispensations with Penal Laws, and the Forfeiture thereof 1623 (UK) 21 Jac 1, cap 3.
- 27.
See Penrose (1951), supra note 9 at 7.
- 28.
- 29.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 37-38.
- 30.
- 31.
See Okediji (2003) at 320–341 [Okediji, “The International Relations of IP”] [Historical accounts identify the early fifteenth century as the beginning of European contact and interaction with SSA These interactions continued on several fronts including trade and maritime travels until the nineteenth century when European countries concluded the Paris Convention in 1883 and the Berne Convention in 1886. The IP system became a central part of the commercial relations in and outside Europe. To this end, African countries were brought under the aegis of the international IP system through the agency of colonial rule. The modus operandi of the struggle towards independence also made African countries beneficiaries of standard IP laws; it was as though IP protection was an incidence of statehood itself]; Oguamanam (2008a), supra note 28.
- 32.
Aoki (2007) at 741.
- 33.
See Aoki (2007), ibid at 741.
- 34.
Aoki (2007), ibid at 743.
- 35.
Aoki (2007), ibid at 722, 745–747 [The cotton gin was cutting edge technology in the 1790s which perpetuated the antebellum chattel slavery regime for several decades].
- 36.
Oguamanam (2008b).
- 37.
Oguamanam (2008a), supra note 28 at 33.
- 38.
See Kuruk (1999).
- 39.
Dutfield (2002) at 905.
- 40.
See Draft Report of the World Intellectual property Organization Fact-Finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (Geneva: WIPO, 1998–1999).
- 41.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 23.
- 42.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 29.
- 43.
Mgbeoji (2007) at 263.
- 44.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 38.
- 45.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 29.
- 46.
See Article 1(3), Paris Convention, 1883.
- 47.
See Article 1(4), Paris Convention, 1883.
- 48.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 39.
- 49.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid at 40.
- 50.
See Articles 13–15 of the Paris Convention, 1883.
- 51.
See Article 20 of the Paris Convention, 1883.
- 52.
See Article 4 to 5bis of the Paris Convention, 1883.
- 53.
See Article 22 of the Paris Convention, 1883.
- 54.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 40.
- 55.
Article 2, Paris Convention, 1883.
- 56.
See Article 4 of the Paris Convention, 1883.
- 57.
Oddi (1987) at 856, 859.
- 58.
Oddi (1987), ibid at 865; According to UNCTAD, 84 % of patents in developing countries are owned by foreigners.
- 59.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 223. Arguably, Mgbeoji’s analogy fails to account for the moratorium granted to developing and LDCs in implementing the TRIPS Agreement. This moratorium is nonetheless threatened by recent bilateral and regional agreements which impose stringent patent regulatory standards on countries in SSA.
- 60.
See Article 5(2) of the Paris Convention. This issue becomes manifest if a state fails to legislate to permit compulsory licensing.
- 61.
Oddi (1987), supra note 57 at 869.
- 62.
La Croix and Liu (2008) at 437.
- 63.
WIPO, “Existence, Scope and Form of Generally Internationally Accepted and Applied Standards/Norms for the Protection of Intellectual Property, WO/INF/29 September 1988, GATT document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/24/Rev1.
- 64.
Mgbeoji (2007), supra note 43 at 266.
- 65.
Oddi (1987), supra note 57 at 854.
- 66.
Croix and Liu (2008), supra note 62 at 438.
- 67.
The Rounds include: 1949 in Geneva, England in 1950–1951, Geneva in: 1955–1956, 1960–1961 (Dillon Round), 1964–1967 (Kennedy Round), 1973–1979 (Tokyo Round), and 1986–1994 (Uruguay Round).
- 68.
Brawley (2005) at 157–158.
- 69.
The promise of the Enlightenment thinking was that human reason was the primary source and legitimacy for authority. This promise turned out to be a ‘myth’, a dysfunction. The promise imposed the political ideals and institutions of the powerful states on less powerful countries, by perpetuating discourse that tends to create and extend domination and dependency. The Enlightenment thinking also fostered the Second World War. For a detailed discussion of the failure of the Enlightenment thinking which took humanity down the barbaric path of Nazism, see Horkheimer and Adorno (1995).
- 70.
Stiglitz (2002) at 282.
- 71.
This is a formal exclusion of developing countries from the GATT requirements in order to shove up the standard of living of their people.
- 72.
Article XVIII of GATT 1947.
- 73.
Stiglitz and Charlton (2005)at 43 [Stiglitz & Charlton, Fair Trade For All].
- 74.
See e.g. Okediji (2003), supra note 31 at 328.
- 75.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 40.
- 76.
Mgbeoji (2006), ibid.
- 77.
See Dreyfuss et al. (2004) at xi.
- 78.
See WIPO, “International Patent System Marks Two Millionth Filing – U.S. Mobile Technology Innovator, Qualcomm, files Landmark Application” PR/2011/687 (2011).
- 79.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 41.
- 80.
See Bronckers (1994).
- 81.
- 82.
Weissman (1996).
- 83.
Drahos and Braithwaite (2004) [Drahos & Braithwaite, “Who Owns the Knowledge Economy”].
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
Mossinghoff (1987).
- 87.
Mossinghoff (1987), ibid.
- 88.
Mossinghoff (1987), ibid.
- 89.
Mossinghoff (1987), ibid.
- 90.
Hale (2000) at xii.
- 91.
Hale (2000), ibid.
- 92.
Gervais (2007b) at xv.
- 93.
Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303(1980).
- 94.
See Berg et al. (1994).
- 95.
Diamond v Diehr, 450 US 175 (1981) [granting protection to computer monitoring of a rubber molding process, because of the physical transformation of the rubber ‘into a different state or thing’].
- 96.
See Ex Parte Hibberd, 227 US Patents Quarterly 443 (Board of Appeals and Interferences, 1985).
- 97.
- 98.
Bayh–Dole University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, Pub L No. 96–517, 35 USC 200–212. The original intent of this Act was to encourage technology transfer from the federally-funded universities in the US.
- 99.
Heller (2008) at 58.
- 100.
Gold and Trommetter (2007).
- 101.
Belenzon and Schankerman (2009) at 112.
- 102.
Belenzon and Schankerman (2009), ibid at 112.
- 103.
Thursby and Thursby (2008) at 207.
- 104.
This section 301 mechanism is a trade enforcement tool that permits the US to withdraw the benefits trade agreements or impose duties on goods from foreign countries. It also includes entering into new agreements to eliminate the alleged offending action.
- 105.
Hoen (2009), supra note 98 at 11.
- 106.
Sell (2003), supra note 98 at 122–123.
- 107.
See Rahmatian (2009), supra note 30 at 48.
- 108.
- 109.
Hoen (2009), ibid at 11.
- 110.
See Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub L No. 97–164, 96 Stat. 25.
- 111.
Arora et al (2008) at 126.
- 112.
Sell (2003), supra note 98 at 69.
- 113.
Merges (1988) at 806.
- 114.
Maskus (2006) at 13.
- 115.
See Roche Products Inc v Bolar Pharmaceutical Co (733 F 2d 858, Fed Cir, 1984). The effect of this ruling has now been minimized. Presently, generic manufacturers can use such test data before the expiry of the patent for purposes of meeting regulatory requirements for approval of generic medicines in the US after 5 years. See, the US Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, 1984, PuB L No. 98–417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984) (this Act is also called “Hatch-Waxman Act”).
- 116.
958 F2d 1053, at 1058 (Fed Cir, 1992).
- 117.
Sell (2003), supra note 98 at 67–69.
- 118.
Mgbeoji (2006), supra note 4 at 14.
- 119.
Gold and Gallochat (2007).
- 120.
See EC, Guidelines Proposed by the European Community for the Negotiations on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, GATT DoC MTN.GNG/NG11/W/16.
- 121.
See North American Free Trade Agreement, United States–Canada–Mexico, 17 December 1992, 32 ILM 289.
- 122.
See Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006) at 635 [Matthews & Munoz-Tellez, “Bilateral Technical Assistance and TRIPS”].
- 123.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 2.
- 124.
Mgbeoji (2007), supra note 43 at 264.
- 125.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information (1987) at 230.
- 126.
See Section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.
- 127.
See Abbott (2005) at 81 [Abbott, “Toward a New Era of Objective Assessment”].
- 128.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 13.
- 129.
Landas (1968) at 163.
- 130.
Oguamanam (2008a), supra note 28 at 31.
- 131.
It must be noted at the outset that most of the accounts of the Uruguay trade deliberations are based on anecdotes and claims rather than concrete evidence, as there were no recordings of the oral arguments. The good news is that the credibility of some of the accounts has not been disputed by key players who participated in the Uruguay negotiations. On this point see Anell (2008). Anell chaired the Negotiating Group on TRIPS, including Trade in Counterfeit Goods.
- 132.
Anell (2008), ibid at vii.
- 133.
Sell (2003), supra note 98 at 8.
- 134.
Gold and Lam (2003) at 15.
- 135.
See Das (2005) at 35.
- 136.
Ostergard (2007) at 116.
- 137.
- 138.
This refers to informal inner circle group meetings used by the Quad: the US, EC, Japan, and Canada to seek consensus and finalize decisions that should have been taken in the formal multilateral setting, where less developed countries can contribute. Occasionally, a number of developing countries were invited to join in such consensus seeking endeavours in order to build a seemingly broad coalition and give the decision a semblance of legitimacy.
- 139.
Chimni (2003) at 53.
- 140.
Drahos (2003) at 87 [Drahos, “When the Weak Bargain with the Strong”].
- 141.
See Drahos (2002) at 769 [Drahos, “DC and International IP Standard-Setting”].
- 142.
Drahos and Braithwaite (2004), supra note 84 at 19.
- 143.
See Helfer (2004), supra note 82 at 3.
- 144.
- 145.
The Tower of Babel offers a metaphorical reminder of what happens when a shared ‘context’ is completely shattered as a result of divergent opinions. This point is taken from See Bartlett (1994) at 2550.
- 146.
Drahos and Braithwaite (2004), supra note 84 at 25.
- 147.
Shukla (1993) at 6.
- 148.
Drahos (2003), supra note 141 at 91.
- 149.
See Gravelle and Whalley (1996).
- 150.
Hoen (2009), supra note 98 at 10.
- 151.
Ogunkola (1999) at 3.
- 152.
See Drahos and Braithwaite (2004), supra note 84 at 28.
- 153.
Footer (2003), supra note 2 at 114.
- 154.
See e.g. Blackhurst et al (2001).
- 155.
- 156.
Preamble to the TRIPS Agreement.
- 157.
Article 27.1 of TRIPS.
- 158.
See Kwoka (2008–2009) at 655.
- 159.
See Article 27.1 of TRIPS.
- 160.
See Articles 41–43 of TRIPS.
- 161.
These two new deadlines are based on an extension. The initial deadline for developing countries was 1 January 2000, and that of LDCs was 1 January 2006. See Decision by the Council for TRIPS of June 27, 2002, Extension of the Transition Period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for LDC Members for Certain Obligations with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, WTO Doc IP/C/25, 1 July 2005. Besides, pharmaceuticals, LDCs have until 1 July 2013 to comply with TRIPS. As earlier indicated, the transition periods for developing and LDCs did not affect the national treatment and most favoured nations treatment obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of TRIPS, respectively.
- 162.
Yu (2003) at 135.
- 163.
This single undertaking rule obliges member countries to agree on an entire set of rules that have been multilaterally negotiated as part of the GATT/WTO. This approach was adopted in concluding the Uruguay Round such that the Final Act was presented as a package deal for which no pick and choose policy were permitted. According to Chimni, this single undertaking practice undermines the legitimacy of the Uruguay Round agreements: Chimni (2003), supra note 140 at 53.
- 164.
Hestermeyer (2007), supra note 7 at 74 [mandating members to provide what is called a ‘mailbox’ system for exclusive marketing of pharmaceuticals for five years in consonance with Article 70.8 & 70.9 of TRIPS].
- 165.
Harris (2006), supra note 138 at 727.
- 166.
Stiglitz (2006) at 311.
- 167.
Stiglitz (2006), ibid 105.
- 168.
Stiglitz and Charlton (2005), supra note 73 at 11–46.
- 169.
- 170.
- 171.
May (2004) at 822 [May, “Capacity Building”].
- 172.
Arewa at 45.
- 173.
Harris defines a treaty of adhesion as a treaty procured through coercion as a result of unequal bargaining power, resulting in an unfair surprise and grossly unfair burdens for the weaker party. For him, embracing the treaty of adhesion doctrine will provide the WTO a basis for interpreting TRIPS more favorably to developing and least developed countries: see Harris (2006), supra note 138; Harris (2007).
- 174.
See e.g. Harris (2006), ibid.
- 175.
- 176.
- 177.
- 178.
Fuentes (2004) at 12–14.
- 179.
- 180.
- 181.
Drahos and Braithwaite (2002), ibid at 13–14.
- 182.
- 183.
Gervais (2007a), supra note 1 at 10.
- 184.
Gervais (2007a), ibid at 10.
- 185.
Gervais (2007a), ibid.
- 186.
Gerhart (2000), supra note 176 at 368.
- 187.
Lucyk (2007) at 212.
- 188.
Drahos and Braithwaite (2002), supra note 138 at 106–107 [the threat of retaliatory sanctions has attained a machine-like efficiency in the post-TRIPS period].
- 189.
El-Said (2005), supra note 145 at 59–61.
- 190.
For a similar discussion of this point see McGinnis and Somin (2009) at 1778–1779.
- 191.
- 192.
- 193.
See Helfer (2004), supra note 82 at 42.
- 194.
Helfer (2004), ibid at 43.
- 195.
This Resolution of the Wealth Health Assembly is quoted in Helfer (2004), ibid.
- 196.
Paranagua (2009) at 142.
- 197.
Helfer (2004), supra note 82 at 4.
- 198.
Helfer (2004), ibid at 4.
- 199.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 153.
- 200.
Helfer (2009) at 43 [Helfer, “Regime Shifting in International IPS”].
- 201.
See the Preambles to the US FTAs with developing countries at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements; Smith et al. (2009) at 688.
- 202.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 223.
- 203.
Zoellick (2003) at 23.
- 204.
Yu (2009) at 83.
- 205.
Schwab (2006).
- 206.
The US-SACU FTA is not yet concluded. For the EU-ACP EPAs, see the Revised Cotonou Agreement http://eCeuropAeu/development/icenter/repository/second_revision_cotonou_agreement_20100311.pdf.
- 207.
USTR (2002).
- 208.
See “SACU Stills Wants FTA with US that Delays Talks on Investment, IPR”, Inside US Trade, 24 February 2006.
- 209.
Abbott (2005), supra note 128 at 89–90.
- 210.
These Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are available online at: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements.
- 211.
Morin (2009) at 176.
- 212.
See e.g. Drahos (2001).
- 213.
Mgbeoji (2007), supra note 43 at 280.
- 214.
Abbott (2005), supra note 128 at 100.
- 215.
Helfer (2009), supra note 201 at 43.
- 216.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 174–175.
- 217.
Bhagwati and Panagariya (2003).
- 218.
See e.g. Gervais (2002).
- 219.
See Morin (2009), supra note 212 at 186–187.
- 220.
UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) at 24–25.
- 221.
UNDP (2003) at 221.
- 222.
May (2004), supra note 172 at 822.
- 223.
See Summary of the Information on Technical Cooperation Activities: Secretariat of the WTO TRIPS Council (IP/C/W/22, 26 April, 1996).
- 224.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), supra note 123 at 632.
- 225.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), ibid at 634.
- 226.
On this point see Drahos (2010).
- 227.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), supra note 123 at 635.
- 228.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), ibid.
- 229.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), ibid at 636.
- 230.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), ibid at 639. Admittedly the bulk of Japan’s anti-piracy seminars have focused on copyright law.
- 231.
See Patricia Asero Achieng & 2 Others vs The Attorney General MISC409/09; Suleiman Mbatiah, “Court Victory against ‘Anti-Counterfeit’ Agenda”, online http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51168; Suleiman Mbatiah, “Agency Unaware of Anti-Counterfeit Law Suspension”, online http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52015.
- 232.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), supra note 123 at 637.
- 233.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), ibid at 646–647.
- 234.
- 235.
One important caveat is that in July 2004, the UK-sponsored capacity building seminar in Kenya and Malawi also focused on the use of TRIPS flexibilities to promote access to medicines.
- 236.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), supra note 123 at 637.
- 237.
Matthews and Munoz-Tellez (2006), ibid at 638.
- 238.
Czapanskiy and Manjoo (2008) at 19 [Czapanskiy & Manjoo, “The Right of Public Participation in Law-Making”].
- 239.
See WIPO’s Legal and Technical Assistance to Developing Countries for the Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2000 (Geneva: WIPO, 2001).
- 240.
A study of the impacts of the WIPO projects on SSA is ongoing under the Open AI.R Project, which is being funded by IDRC Canada and Germany’s BMZ.
- 241.
See Article 3, Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, 1967, 848 UNTS 3.
- 242.
See Joint WTO-WIPO Press Release, 21 July 1998, Press/108, online: www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres98_e/pr108_e.htm.
- 243.
May (2006) at 104, online: http://wwwbath.aCuk/cri/pdf/ecpr_pdf/1_May.pdf.
- 244.
Article 1, Agreement between the UN and the WIPO, 1974, available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/agreement/index.html.
- 245.
This conclusion was reached based on the author’s experience from working in Ghana and interactions with IP policy-makers and practitioners in Kenya and Uganda.
- 246.
See May (2004), supra note 172 at 825.
- 247.
May (2004), ibid.
- 248.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 6–7.
- 249.
WIPO, “Technical Assistance Database” online at: <http://www.wipo.int/tad/en/>. For instance, WIPO member states have recently approved a project to build a common digital platform which will help streamline the identification of protected musical works across eleven West African countries, including Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo.
- 250.
See e.g. Drahos (2002), supra note 142 at 777.
- 251.
Amani (2009), supra note 13 at 7.
- 252.
Czapanskiy and Manjoo (2008), supra note 239 at 15.
- 253.
Ximena Fuentes (2004), supra note 179 at 13.
- 254.
2006 (12) BCLR 1399 (CC) (SA).
- 255.
The health statutes include: Traditional Health Practitioners Act 35 of 2004 (recognizing and regulating traditional health healers); Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 38 of 2004 (making provision for registered nurses, other than midwives, to perform termination of pregnancies at certain public and private facilities); Dental Technicians Amendment Act 24 of 2004 (providing for persons who have been employed as dental laboratory assistants for a period of not less than five years under the supervision of a dentist or dental technician, and who have been trained by these professionals, to perform the work of a dental technician); and the Sterilisation Amendment Act 3 of 2005 (providing for additional information to be considered when contemplating sterilization and others).
- 256.
Since the statutes were, at the time of judgment, in force, the Court’s decision was suspended for 18 months to enable Parliament to re-enact those legislation taking into account the requirements of the Constitution. The remaining two pieces of legislation were held to be duly enacted.
- 257.
UNAIDS (2011).
- 258.
See Fact sheet on settlement agreements. Cape Town, Treatment Action Campaign, (2003) http://www.taCorg.za/newsletter/2003/ns10_12_2003.htm; Avafia et al (2006).
- 259.
Czapanskiy and Manjoo (2008), supra note 239 at 23.
- 260.
See Stiglitz (2002), supra note 70 at x.
- 261.
See “Statement to the media by Pascal Lamy upon taking office on 1 September 2005”, online: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news05_e/dg_lamy_1sept05_e.htm.
- 262.
See Blakeney (2006) at 24.
Bibliography
Literature
Gervais DJ (2007a) TRIPS and development. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 3
Gold R et al (2008) Toward a new era of intellectual property: from confrontation to negotiation. A report from the International Expert Group on biotechnology, innovation and intellectual property. Online: http://www.theinnovationpartnership.org/data/ieg/documents/report/TIP_Report_E.pdf
Footer ME (2003) Technical assistance and trade law reform post-Doha: brave new world. In: Hatchard J, Perry-Kessaris A (eds) Law and development: facing complexity in the 21st century. Cavendish, London, p 108
Vaver D (2002) Need intellectual property be everywhere? Against ubiquity and uniformity. Dalhous Law J 25:1
Mgbeoji I (2006) Global biopiracy: patents, plants, and indigenous knowledge. UBC Press, Vancouver
Hestermeyer H (2007) Human rights and the WTO: the case of patents and access to medicines. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Penrose ET (1951) The economics of the international patent system. Greenwood Press, Westport
Merges RP, Duffy JF (2002) Patent law and policy, 3rd edn. LexisNexis, Newark
Amani B (2009) State agency and the patenting of life in international law: merchants and missionaries in a global society. Ashgate, Surrey
Baxter JW (1976) World patent law and practice, vol 2. Sweet and Maxwell, London
Oguamanam C (2008a) Local knowledge as trapped knowledge: intellectual property, culture, power and politics. J World Intellect Prop 11:29
Manteaw SO (2008–2010) Patents and development in Ghana: proposals for change. Univ Ghana Law J 24:111
Rahmatian A (2009) Neo-colonial aspects of global intellectual property protection. J World Intellect Prop 12:40
Hamilton MA (1996) The TRIPS agreement: imperialistic, outdated, and overprotective. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 29:613
Okediji RL (2003) The international relations of intellectual property: narratives of developing country participation in the global intellectual system. Singapore J Int Comp Law 7:315
Aoki K (2007) Distributive and syncretic motives in Intellectual Property Law (with special reference to coercion, agency, and development). UC Davis Law Rev 717
Oguamanam C (2008b) Patents and traditional medicine: digital capture, creative legal interventions and the dialectics of knowledge transformation. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 15:489
Kuruk P (1999) Protecting folklore under modern intellectual property regimes: a reappraisal of the tensions between individual and communal rights in Africa and the United States. Am Univ Law Rev 46:769
Dutfield G (2002) Sharing the benefit of biodiversity: is there a role for the patent system? J World Intellect Prop 5:899
Mgbeoji I (2007) TRIPS and TRIPS-plus impacts in Africa. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 259
Oddi AS (1987) The international patent system and third world development: reality or myth? Duke Law J 63:831
La Croix S, Liu M (2008) Patents and access to essential medicines. In: Maskus KE (ed) Intellectual property, growth and trade. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 423
Brawley MR (2005) Power, money, & trade: decisions that shape global economic relations. Broadview Press, Ontario
Horkheimer M and Adorno TW (1995) Dialectic of enlightenment. In: Cumming J (ed) New York: Continuum
Stiglitz JE (2002) Globalization and its discontents. W.W. Norton & Co., New York
Stiglitz JE, Charlton A (2005) Fair trade for all: how trade can promote development. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dreyfuss R et al (eds) (2004) Expanding the boundaries of intellectual property: innovation policy for the knowledge society. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bronckers MCEJ (1994) The impact of TRIPS: intellectual property protection in developing countries. Common Mark Law Rev 31:1245
Helfer LR (2004) Regime shifting: the TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale J Int Law 29:1
Weissman R (1996) A long strange TRIPS: the pharmaceutical industry drive to harmonize global intellectual property rules, and the remaining WTO legal alternatives available to third world countries. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 17(4):1069
Drahos P, Braithwaite J (2004) Who owns the knowledge economy: political organizing behind TRIPS. Corner House Briefing 32:9, Online: http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk
Dutfield G, Suthersanen U (2008) Global intellectual property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Adusei P (2002–2004) Cyberspace and the dilemma of traditional copyright law: an assessment of the impact on the legal community. Univ Ghana Law J 22:202
Mossinghoff GJ (1987) Research-based pharmaceutical companies: the need for improved patent protection worldwide. J Law Technol 2:307
Hale M (2000) Foreword. In: Dutfield G (ed) Intellectual property rights, trade and biotechnology: seeds and plant varieties. Earthscan, London
Gervais DJ (2007b) Introduction. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p xv
Berg S et al (1994) PTO biotechnology patent protection hearing. J Proprietary Rts 6(11):33
Sell SK (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
’t Hoen EFM (2009) The global politics of pharmaceutical monopoly power: drug patents, access, innovation and the application of WTO declaration on TRIPS and public health. AMB, Amsterdam
Heller M (2008) The gridlock economy: how too much ownership wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives. Basic Books, New York
Gold ER and Trommetter M (2007) “The Role of Biotechnology Intellectual Property Rights in the Bioeconomy of 2030” OECD Paper 8. Online: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/58/40925999.pdf
Belenzon S, Schankerman M (2009) University knowledge transfer: private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. J Law Econ 52:111
Thursby J, Thursby M (2008) Knowledge creation and diffusion of public science with intellectual property rights. In: Maskus KE (ed) Intellectual property, growth and trade. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 200
Arora A et al (2008) Patents and the market for technology. In: Maskus KE (ed) Intellectual property, growth and trade. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 123
Merges RP (1988) Commercial success and patent standards: economic perspectives on innovation. Calif L Rev 76:803
Gold ER, Gallochat A (2007) The European biotech directive: past as prologue. Eur Law J 7:331
Matthews D, Munoz-Tellez V (2006) Bilateral technical assistance and TRIPS: the United States, Japan and the European Communities in comparative perspective. J World Intellect Prop 9:629
Abbott FM (2005) Toward a new era of objective assessment in the field of TRIPS and variable geometry for the preservation of multilateralism. J Int Econ Law 8:77
Landas S (1968) Existing uniformity of industrial property laws and revised patent of introduction: means for transfer of technical information to less industrialized countries. IDEA 12:163
Anell L (2008) Foreword. In: Gervais D (ed) The TRIPS agreement: drafting history and analysis, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p viii
Gold ER, Lam DK (2003) Balancing trade in patents: public non-commercial use and compulsory licensing. J World Intellect Prop 6:5
Das DK (2005) Intellectual property rights and the Doha round. J World Intellect Prop 8:33
Ostergard RL (2007) Economic growth and intellectual property rights protection: a reassessment of the conventional wisdom. In: Gervais DJ (ed) Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS-plus era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 115
Harris DP (2006) Carrying a joke too far: TRIPS and treaties of adhesion. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 27:681
Gervais D (2008) The TRIPS agreement: drafting history and analysis, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Drahos P, Braithwaite J (2002) Information feudalism: who owns the knowledge economy? Earthscan, London
Chimni BS (2003) Third World approaches to international law: a manifesto. In: Anghie A et al (eds) The Third World and international order: law, politics and globalization. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 47
Drahos P (2003) When the Weak Bargain with the strong: negotiation in the World Trade Organization. Int Negotiation 8(1):79
Drahos P (2002) Developing countries and international intellectual property standard-setting. J World Intellect Prop 5:765
El-Said M (2005) The road from TRIPS-minus, to TRIPS, to TRIPS-plus: implications of intellectual property rights for the Arab world. J World Intellect Prop 8:53
Bartlett KT (1994) Only girls wear barrettes: dress and appearance standards, community norms, and workplace equality. Mich Law Rev 2541
Shukla SP (1993) Agriculture in Dunkel’s draft of GATT – a critical analysis. TWN, New Delhi
Gravelle M and Whalley J (1996) Africa and the Uruguay round. Transnatl Law Contemp Probs 123
Ogunkola EO (1999) African capacity for compliance and defence of WTO rights. Paper for African Economic Research Consortium (AERC)-Sponsored Conference on Africa and the World Trading System, Yaounde (17–18 April)
Blackhurst R et al (2001) Options for improving Africa’s participation in the WTO. In: Hoekman B et al (eds) Developing countries and the WTO: a pro-active agenda. Blackwell, Oxford, p 95
Yu PK (2006) TRIPS and its discontents. Marquette Intellect Prop Law Rev 10:369
Kwoka MB (2008–2009) Vindicating the rights of people living with AIDS under the Alien Tort Claims Act. Loyola Univ Chic Law J 40:643
Yu P (2003) Four common misconceptions about copyright piracy. Loyola Los Angeles Int Comp Law Rev 26:127
Stiglitz J (2006) Making globalization work. Norton, New York
Idris K (2003) Intellectual property: a power tool for economic growth, 2nd edn. WIPO, Geneva
Kitch EW (1994) The patent policy of developing countries. UCLA Pac Basin Law J 13:166
Sykes AO (2002) TRIPS, pharmaceuticals, developing countries and the Doha ‘Solution’. Chic J Int Law 3:47
May C (2004) Capacity building and the (re)production of intellectual property rights. Third World Q 25(5):821
Harris DP (2007) TRIPS and treaties of adhesion part II: back to the past or a small step forward? Michigan State Law Rev 2007:185
Reichman J (2000) The TRIPs agreement comes of age: conflict or cooperation with the developing countries. Case West Reserve J Int Law 32:441
Gerhart P (2000) Reflections: beyond compliance theory: TRIPs as a substantive issues. Case West Reserve J Int Law 32:357
May C (2011) The political economy of intellectual property rights, vol 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Anghie A et al (eds) (2003) The Third World and international order: law, politics and globalization. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Agbakwa S (2003) A line in the sand: International (Dis)Order and the Impunity of the non-state corporate actors in the developing world. In: Anghie A et al (eds) The Third World and international order: law, politics and globalization. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 1
Oguamanam C (2011) IP in global governance: a venture in critical reflection. WIPO J 2:196
Fuentes X (2004) International law-making in the field of sustainable development: the unequal competition between development and the environment. In: Schrijver N, Weiss F (eds) International law and sustainable development. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, p 1
Finger JM et al (2001) Implementation of Uruguay round commitments: the development challenge. In: Hoekman B et al (eds) Developing countries and the WTO: a pro-active agenda. Blackwell, Oxford, p 115
Cooter R, Ulen T (1997) Law and economics. Addison-Wesley, MA
Lucyk S (2007) Patents, politics and public health access to essential medicines under the TRIPS Agreement. Ottawa Law Rev 38:191
McGinnis JO, Somin I (2009) Democracy and international human rights law. Notre Dame Law Rev 84:1739
Bacchus J (2004) A few thoughts on legitimacy, democracy, and the WTO. J Int Econ Law 7(3):667
Shaffer G (2004) Parliamentary oversight of WTO rule-making: the political, normative, and practical contexts. J Int Econ Law 7(3):629
Paranagua P (2009) Strategies to implement WIPO’s development agenda: a Brazilian perspective and beyond. In: de Beer J (ed) Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Ottawa, p 140
Helfer LR (2009) Regime shifting in the international intellectual property system. Perspect Polit 7:39
Smith RD et al (2009) Trade, TRIPS, and pharmaceuticals. Lancet 373:684
Yu PK (2009) Building intellectual property coalitions for development. In: de Beer J (ed) Implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Development Agenda. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Ottawa, p 79
Morin J-F (2009) Multilateralizing TRIPs-plus agreements: is the US strategy a failure. J World Intellect Prop 12:175
Drahos P (2001) BITs and BIPs: bilateralism in intellectual property. J World Intellect Prop 4:791
Gervais DJ (2002) The internationalization of intellectual property: new challenges from the very old and the very new. Fordham IP Media Ent Law J 12:929
UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
UNDP (2003) Making global trade work for people. Earthscan, New York
Drahos P (2010) The global governance of knowledge: patent offices and their clients. Cambridge University Press, New York
Czapanskiy KS, Manjoo R (2008) The right of public participation in the law-making process and the role of legislature in the promotion of this right. Duke J Comp Int Law 19:1
May C (2006) The World Intellectual Property Organization and the Development Agenda. Paper presented at the Center for the Study of Regulated Industries Conference (Bath, UK)
Avafia T et al (2006) The Ability of Select sub-Saharan African Countries to Utilize TRIPs Flexibilities and Competition Law to Ensure a Sustainable Supply of Essential Medicines: A Study of Producing and Importing Countries. ICTSD, UNCTAD and tralac. Online: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s18249en/s18249en.pdf
Blakeney M (2006) A critical analysis of the TRIPS agreement. In: Pugatch MP (ed) The intellectual property debate: perspectives from law, economics and political economy. Edward Elgar, MA, p 17
Botoy IE (2004) From the Paris Convention to the TRIPS Agreement: A One-Hundred-and-Twelve-Year Transition for the Industrialized Countries. J World Intellect Prop 7:115
Maskus KE (2006) Reforming US Patent Policy: Getting the Incentives Right (CSR No. 19, November)
Arewa OB. Piracy, Biopiracy and Borrowing: Culture, Cultural Heritage and the Globalization of Intellectual Property. Online: http://works.bepress.com/o_arewa/4/
Zoellick RB (2003) America Will Not Wait for the Won’t-Do Countries. Financial Times (22 September)
Schwab SC (2006) US Trade Representative-Designate, Opening Statement to the US Senate Committee on Finance 11 (May 16, 2006)
Bhagwati J, Panagariya A (2003) Bilateral Trade Treaties Are a Sham. Financial Times (14 July
UNAIDS (2011) Using TRIPS Flexibilities to Improve Access to HIV Treatment. In: AIDS at 30: Nations at the Crossroads. Online http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/unaidspublications/2011/
USTR (2002) Senate Letter: USTR Notifies Congress Administration Intends to Initiate Free Trade Negotiations with Sub-Saharan Nations. http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Letters_to_Congress/2002/USTR_Notifies_Congress_Administration_Intends_to_Initiate_Free_Trade_Negotiations_with_Sub-Saharan_Nations.html
Treaties and Legislation
An Act Concerning Monopolies and Dispensations with Penal Laws, and the Forfeiture thereof 1623 (UK) 21 Jac 1 cap 3.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886, 828 UNTS 221.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883, 21 UST 1538, 828 UNTS 305.
Bayh-Dole University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, Pub L No. 96-517, 35 USC 200-212.
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub L No. 97-164, 96 Stat. 25.
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, 1984, Pub L No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984).
North American Free Trade Agreement, United States-Canada-Mexico, 17 December 1992, 32 ILM 289.
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization 1967, 848 UNTS 3.
Traditional Health Practitioners Act 35 of 2004 (South Africa).
Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 38 of 2004 (South Africa).
Dental Technicians Amendment Act 24 of 2004 (South Africa).
Sterilisation Amendment Act 3 of 2005 (South Africa).
Jurisprudence
The Clothesworkers of Ipswich Case, 78 ER 147.
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Financial Group, Inc, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed Cir, 1998).
In re Bernard L Bilski & Rand A Warsaw (2007-1130) (Serial No. 08/833,892).
Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US 303(1980).
Diamond v Diehr, 450 US 175 (1981).
Ex Parte Hibberd, 227 US Patents Quarterly 443 (Board of Appeals and Interferences, 1985).
Roche Products Inc v Bolar Pharmaceutical Co, 733 F 2d 858 (Fed Cir, 1984).
Arrhythmia Research Tech., Inc. v Corazonix Corp, 958 F2d 1053, at 1058 (Fed Cir, 1992).
Patricia Asero Achieng & 2 Others vs The Attorney General MISC409/09.
Documents
Draft Report of the World Intellectual property Organization Fact-Finding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (Geneva: WIPO, 1998-1999).
WIPO, “Existence, Scope and Form of Generally Internationally Accepted and Applied Standards/Norms for the Protection of Intellectual Property, WO/INF/29 September 1988, GATT document MTN.GNG/NG11/W/24/Rev1.
Guidelines Proposed by the European Community for the Negotiations on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, GATT DoC MTN.GNG/NG11/W/16.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information (1987).
Extension of the Transition Period under Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement for LDC Members for Certain Obligations with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, WTO Doc IP/C/25, 1 July 2005.
Summary of the Information on Technical Cooperation Activities: Secretariat of the WTO TRIPS Council (IP/C/W/22, 26 April, 1996).
Mbatiah, Suleiman. “Court Victory against ‘Anti-Counterfeit’ Agenda”, online <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51168>.
Mbatiah, Suleiman. “Agency Unaware of Anti-Counterfeit Law Suspension”, online <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52015>.
WIPO’s Legal and Technical Assistance to Developing Countries for the Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2000 (Geneva: WIPO, 2001).
UNAIDS. AIDS at 30: Nations at the Crossroads (2011).
Ogunkola, EO. “African Capacity for Compliance and Defence of WTO Rights” Paper for African Economic Research Consortium (AERC)-Sponsored Conference on Africa and the World Trading System, Yaounde, Cameroon (17-18 April 1999).
May, Christopher. The World Intellectual Property Organisation and the Development Agenda (2006), online: <http://www.bath.aCuk/cri/pdf/ecpr_pdf/1_May.pdf>.
Arewa, Olufunmilayo B. “Piracy, Biopiracy and Borrowing: Culture, Cultural Heritage and the Globalization of Intellectual Property”, online: <http://works.bepress.com/o_arewa/4/>.
USTR, Senate Letter: USTR Notifies Congress Administration Intends to Initiate Free Trade Negotiations with Sub-Saharan Nations (2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Adusei, P. (2013). Evolutionary Trajectories of Patents and the Politics of Exclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Patenting of Pharmaceuticals and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32515-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32515-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32514-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32515-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)