Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia‐Pacific
Jean‐Frédéric Morin Madison Cartwright, Université Laval, Canada University of Sydney, Australia
1.Global IP politics2. Coercion 3. Contractualization4. Socialization5. Preliminary conclusion6. Next steps?
1.Global IP politics2. Coercion3. Contractualization4. Socialization5. Preliminary conclusions6. Next steps?
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Outline of the presentation
Global IP Politics
IP in knowledge‐based economies and global value chains; Zero‐sum game between knowledge‐producers and users; Widening gap between US/EU laws and multilateral treaties; US and EU as the main exporters of IP regulations; Asia/Pacific is one of the targets of both US and EU; 3 mechanisms: coercion, contractualization, and socialization.
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Targets of US coercion
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AustraliaCambodia
China (P.R.C.)Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Hong Kong SARIndonesia
JapanKorea, Republic of
LaosMalaysiaMongoliaMyanmar
NepalNew Zealand
Papua New GuineaPhilippinesSingaporeThailandVietnam
Priority Watch List (since 2000) GSP review Source: authors
Targets of EU coercion
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
AustraliaCambodia
China (P.R.C.)Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Hong Kong SARIndonesia
JapanKorea, Republic of
LaosMalaysiaMongoliaMyanmar
NepalNew Zealand
Papua New GuineaPhilippinesSingaporeThailandVietnam
p1 p2 p3Source: authors
US/EU coercion on specific IP rights
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Adequacy of copyright law
Copyright infringement
Adequacy of patent law
Adequacy of patent application procedures
Data exclusivity and protection
Quality of patents granted
Compulsory licensing
Royalty payments for patents
Patent infringement
Adequacy of trademark law
Trade mark infringement and bad faith registration
Quality of law enforcement
Effectiveness of judicial system
Border control and customs procedures
Adequacy of sanctions
Market for counterfeit goods
Public awareness of IP
Plurilateral and multilateral efforts
Protection of trade secrets
Adequacy of IP law generally
Adequacy of geographical indications law
EU (%)
US (%)
Source: authors
US and EU PTAs
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Source: authors
The sequence of US/EU PTAs
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
0 10 20 30 40 50
New Zealand 2000
EFTA 2002
Japan 2002
ASEAN‐ Australia 2003
US 2003
ASEAN China 2004
Jordan 2004
India 2005
Korea 2005
TPSEP 2005
ASEAN Korea 2006
Panama 2006
ASEAN Japan 2008
China 2008
GCC 2008
Peru 2008
ASEAN india 2009
ASEAN NZ 2010
Costa Rica 2010
Taipei 2013
EU 2016
TPP 2016
Singaporian PTAs (2000‐2018)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4
US Vietnam 2000
Japan Vietnam 2008
Association of Southeast Asian Nations…
Korea Vietnam 2015
Armenia Belarus KazaKHstan Kyrgistan…
EU Vietnam 2016
Transpacific Partnership (TPP) 2016
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement…
Vietnamese PTAs (2000‐2018)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chile 2003EFTA 2005
Asia Pacific Trade Agreement 2005Singapore 2005
Association of Southeast Asian Nations…US 2007
India 2009EU 2010
Peru 2011Turkey 2012
Colombia 2013Australia 2014Canada 2014Vietnam 2015
New Zealand 2015China 2015
Korean PTAs (2000‐2018)
Source: Morin and Surbeck 2019
IP rights in US/EU PTAs
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Source: Morin and Surbeck 2019
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
Korea US TPP EU Korea EU Vitnam 2016
Socialization via capacity building
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Papua New Guinea
Mongolia
Laos
Cambodia
Vietnam
Indonesia
Philippines
Malaysia
Thailand
China
Number of US‐Sponsors IP capacity‐building events 2005‐2010
Preliminary conclusionsNo evidence that US/EU activities are based on a division of labour
• Both rely on a mix of coercion, contractualization and socialization. • Both use mainly coercion and socialization with China, and three PTAs with same countries.
No evidence that US/EU activities are driven by regulatory competition or rivalry. • Both mainly insist on stronger patent protection and copyright enforcement
Yet, some non‐trivial differences, including: • Only the EU used coercion against Vietnam • The US uses coercion more aggressively (China) and EU socialization is more institutionalized• US insists more strongly on trademarks (in PTAs and coercion). • EU insists more strongly on GI (in PTAs, coercion and socialization)• EU includes more civil‐society groups and development‐oriented issues
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Focusing on different IP rights?
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Little EUpressure
Strong EUpressure
Little USpressure
Traditional knowledge Geographical indications
Strong USpressure
Trademark Patent /Copyright
Focusing on different exporters?
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Little EU pressure
Strong EUpressure
Little USpressure
Cambodia Papua New Guinea
Strong US pressure
Laos Vietnam
Focusing on domestic context ?
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
Institutionally centralized
Institutionallyfragmented
Low economic interest for IP
Laos Philippines
Stronger economic interest for IP
Singapore China
Focusing on mechanism interactions?
IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?
EU PTA No EU PTA
High EU
socializationLow EU
socializationHigh EU
socializationLow EU
socialization
EU Coercion Vietnam Thailand
No EU Coercion
Papua New Guinea
East Timor
Jean‐Frédéric Morin Madison CartwrightUniversité Laval, Canada University of Sydney, Australia
Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia‐Pacific
